tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/fairness-12420/articlesFairness – The Conversation2024-03-19T12:26:28Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2202712024-03-19T12:26:28Z2024-03-19T12:26:28ZBuilding fairness into AI is crucial – and hard to get right<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582656/original/file-20240318-18-u3qu8i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3478%2C3071&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are the AIs making decisions about your life fair?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/personnel-evaluation-by-artificial-royalty-free-illustration/1733429687?phrase=Artificial+intelligence+hiring">sorbetto/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Artificial intelligence’s capacity to process and analyze vast amounts of data has revolutionized decision-making processes, making operations in <a href="https://doi.org/10.7861%2Ffhj.2021-0095">health care</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2644">finance</a>, <a href="https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/using-artificial-intelligence-address-criminal-justice-needs">criminal justice</a> and other sectors of society more efficient and, in many instances, more effective.</p>
<p>With this transformative power, however, comes a significant responsibility: the need to ensure that these technologies are developed and deployed in a manner that is <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1610.02413">equitable and just</a>. In short, AI needs to be fair. </p>
<p>The pursuit of fairness in AI is not merely an ethical imperative but a requirement in order to foster trust, inclusivity and the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/">responsible advancement of technology</a>. However, ensuring that AI is fair is a major challenge. And on top of that, my research as a computer scientist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=ASf9Q04AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate">who studies AI</a> shows that attempts to ensure fairness in AI can have unintended consequences.</p>
<h2>Why fairness in AI matters</h2>
<p>Fairness in AI has emerged as a <a href="https://www.aies-conference.com/2024/">critical area of focus</a> for researchers, developers and policymakers. It transcends technical achievement, touching on <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/">ethical, social and legal dimensions of the technology</a>.</p>
<p>Ethically, fairness is a cornerstone of building trust and acceptance of AI systems. People need to trust that AI decisions that affect their lives – for example, hiring algorithms – are made equitably. Socially, AI systems that embody fairness can help address and mitigate historical biases – for example, those against women and minorities – fostering inclusivity. Legally, embedding fairness in AI systems helps bring those systems into alignment with anti-discrimination laws and regulations around the world.</p>
<p>Unfairness can stem from two primary sources: the input data and the algorithms. Research has shown that input data can <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2477899">perpetuate bias</a> in various sectors of society. For example, in hiring, algorithms processing data that reflects societal prejudices or lacks diversity can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372828">perpetuate “like me” biases</a>. These biases favor candidates who are similar to the decision-makers or those already in an organization. When biased data is then used to train a machine learning algorithm to aid a decision-maker, the algorithm can <a href="http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html?mod=article_inline&ref=akusion-ci-shi-dai-bizinesumedeia">propagate and even amplify these biases</a>.</p>
<h2>Why fairness in AI is hard</h2>
<p>Fairness is inherently subjective, influenced by cultural, social and personal perspectives. In the context of AI, researchers, developers and policymakers often translate fairness to the idea that algorithms <a href="https://fairmlbook.org/index.html">should not perpetuate or exacerbate</a> existing biases or inequalities.</p>
<p>However, measuring fairness and building it into AI systems is fraught with subjective decisions and technical difficulties. Researchers and policymakers have proposed <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1610.02413">various definitions of fairness</a>, such as demographic parity, equality of opportunity and individual fairness.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hZG9tyOcyx0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Why the concept of algorithmic fairness is so challenging.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These definitions involve different mathematical formulations and underlying philosophies. They also often conflict, highlighting the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3433949">difficulty of satisfying all fairness criteria</a> simultaneously in practice.</p>
<p>In addition, fairness cannot be distilled into a single metric or guideline. It encompasses a spectrum of considerations including, but not limited to, <a href="https://fairmlbook.org/index.html">equality of opportunity, treatment and impact</a>.</p>
<h2>Unintended effects on fairness</h2>
<p>The multifaceted nature of fairness means that AI systems must be scrutinized at every level of their development cycle, from the initial design and data collection phases to their final deployment and ongoing evaluation. This scrutiny reveals another layer of complexity. AI systems are seldom deployed in isolation. They are used as part of often complex and important decision-making processes, such as making recommendations about hiring or allocating funds and resources, and are subject to many constraints, including <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4589207">security and privacy</a>.</p>
<p>Research my colleagues and I conducted shows that constraints such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.03886">computational resources, hardware types</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/78">privacy</a> can significantly influence the fairness of AI systems. For instance, the need for computational efficiency can lead to simplifications that inadvertently overlook or misrepresent marginalized groups. </p>
<p>In our study on network pruning – a method to make complex machine learning models smaller and faster – we found that this process <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.13574">can unfairly affect certain groups</a>. This happens because the pruning might not consider how different groups are represented in the data and by the model, leading to biased outcomes.</p>
<p>Similarly, privacy-preserving techniques, while crucial, can obscure the data necessary to identify and mitigate biases or disproportionally affect the outcomes for minorities. For example, when statistical agencies add noise to data to protect privacy, this can <a href="https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/78">lead to unfair resource allocation</a> because the added noise affects some groups more than others. This disproportionality can also <a href="https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2022/766">skew decision-making processes</a> that rely on this data, such as resource allocation for public services. </p>
<p>These constraints do not operate in isolation but intersect in ways that compound their impact on fairness. For instance, when privacy measures exacerbate biases in data, it can further amplify existing inequalities. This makes it important to have a comprehensive understanding and approach to both privacy and fairness for AI development.</p>
<h2>The path forward</h2>
<p>Making AI fair is not straightforward, and there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. It requires a process of continuous learning, adaptation and collaboration. Given that bias is pervasive in society, I believe that people working in the AI field should recognize that it’s not possible to achieve perfect fairness and instead strive for continuous improvement. </p>
<p>This challenge requires a commitment to rigorous research, thoughtful policymaking and ethical practice. To make it work, researchers, developers and users of AI will need to ensure that considerations of fairness are woven into all aspects of the AI pipeline, from its conception through data collection and algorithm design to deployment and beyond.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/220271/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ferdinando Fioretto receives funding from the National Science Foundation, Google, and Amazon. </span></em></p>Bias in AI has been getting a lot of attention lately, but it’s just one aspect of the larger – and thornier – problem of fairness in AI.Ferdinando Fioretto, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2228592024-02-20T13:18:28Z2024-02-20T13:18:28ZHow politicians can draw fairer election districts − the same way parents make kids fairly split a piece of cake<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575690/original/file-20240214-20-umxbsw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=47%2C0%2C5315%2C3532&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Unchecked, politicians are likely to try to grab as much electoral power as they can.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/two-girls-playfully-inserting-their-hands-in-a-royalty-free-image/89800006">Fabrice LEROUGE/ONOKY via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Redistricting – the process of determining the boundaries of election districts in which people vote – is a key element of politics that has more of an effect than people might realize. One Republican political consultant called it an election in reverse: “Usually the voters get to pick the politicians. In redistricting, the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/06/06/730260511/redistricting-gurus-hard-drives-could-mean-legal-political-woes-for-gop">politicians get to pick the voters</a>.”</p>
<p>In 33 states, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedures">legislatures draw congressional district boundaries</a>. In eight, that work is done by commissions meant to be independent from the legislatures. In two states, legislatures and commissions both play roles in the map-drawing process. The remaining seven states have just one congressional district each, so there is no need to draw district boundaries. </p>
<p>How district lines are drawn determines who wins elections and, ultimately, who holds political power. </p>
<p>With such high stakes, members of both parties have incentives to create districts that grant themselves an undue electoral advantage. The result is that one party generally ends up unhappy with the redistricting process, and voters are left with districts that may not reflect their collective will. Sometimes, parties <a href="https://apnews.com/article/elections-voting-virginia-voting-rights-census-2020-c31ebadc6f11211fb772429285474181">do not</a> even <a href="https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/159-2024-01-16-pls-objection.pdf">agree</a> on who should serve as a tiebreaker or independent arbiter to resolve disputes.</p>
<p>Our research has found a way that lets politicians pick their voters, but without ending up with excessive <a href="https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2017/02/elbridge-gerry-and-the-monstrous-gerrymander/">partisan gerrymandering</a>, which is what happens when the people redrawing districts produce an election map with a clear advantage for one party or the other.</p>
<p>Several states have made efforts to combat gerrymandering, with unclear success. Take, for instance, an effort to draw new congressional districts in New York: In 2022 a redistricting commission meant to be independent from the state legislature <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/nyregion/new-york-redistricting-gerrymandering.html">failed to agree on a map</a>, so the process reverted to state legislators. </p>
<p>The map legislators in the Democratic-majority statehouse drew was ruled by a court to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/27/nyregion/redistricting-congress-gerrymander-ny.html">favor Democrats too much</a>. A court-appointed independent expert drew a new map, which resulted in the November 2022 <a href="https://www.politico.com/2022-election/results/new-york/house/">election of several new Republican members of Congress from New York</a>. But in December 2023, a <a href="https://redistricting.lls.edu/case/hoffman-v-redistricting-commission/">court set aside the independent expert’s map</a> and ruled the <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/15/new-house-lines-approved-in-new-york-what-would-change-00141728">independent commission should try again</a>. </p>
<p>Our method, which we detail in a new scholarly paper, requires neither <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2023.39">cooperation between members of the two major parties</a> nor an independent arbiter to resolve disputes. By giving both parties control of a piece of the process, our method – we call it the Define-Combine Procedure, or DCP – delivers fairer maps than either party would draw on its own. We have also created a website where people can <a href="https://definecombine.com/">try our method for themselves</a>.</p>
<h2>Political fairness</h2>
<p>Many people have attempted to solve problems of political fairness and redistricting in various ways. In our approach, we looked to the age-old problem of fairly cutting a cake: How do you make sure the person cutting the cake gives everyone an equal slice? Parents will often have <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cake-cutting-math-problem-fairness-envy">one child cut the cake and the other child pick which piece they want</a>.</p>
<p>We use a similar approach to propose breaking the redistricting process into two steps, each of which is assigned to one political party. </p>
<p>In the first step, one party draws districts on the map. However, unlike regular redistricting, in which they draw the exact number of districts needed, our process requires the first party to draw twice that number of half- or sub-districts. Like full electoral districts, these half-districts must have <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/congressional-dist.html">equal populations</a> and be physically <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11618">contiguous</a>. Many states also have <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Compactness">requirements for district compactness</a>, which would apply to this first stage of map drawing too. We also don’t allow <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2021/10/12/texas-redistricting-doughnut-fort-hood-bell-county/">“doughnut” districts</a> – where one district is entirely surrounded by another district.</p>
<p>In the second step, the other party chooses how to pair neighboring half-districts into full-size districts.</p>
<p>Even if each party acts entirely in its own interest, attempting to maximize its own chances of winning the most districts, the fact that the process is split into these two stages holds each party’s ambitions somewhat in check. </p>
<p><iframe id="wHmsK" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/wHmsK/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Testing representation</h2>
<p>We used computer simulations to investigate how this process might work in drawing congressional districts in the 50 states. We found that our method substantially diminishes the partisan advantage that would exist when just one party controls the redistricting process. </p>
<p>For instance, in Texas, which has 38 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, we estimate that if Republicans had complete control of the map and acted selfishly, they could draw a map with eight Democratic seats and 30 Republican seats. If Democrats were in complete control and acting selfishly, they could create a map with 28 Democratic seats and 10 Republican seats. The party in control of 20 of Texas’ seats in Congress would depend on which party drew the map.</p>
<p>Through simulating the map-drawing process under our method hundreds of thousands of times, using 2020 election results and census data, we find that Democrats would win 17 seats, while Republicans would win 19 seats, with just two seats changing hands depending on which party did which part of the two-stage process.</p>
<p>Regardless of who goes first, our method produces a more representative map. And by reducing the number of seats that swing based on party control from 20 to two, the stakes are lower, which we hope could reduce the dysfunction of the current process.</p>
<h2>A national simulation</h2>
<p>We also moved beyond one state, simulating how each party could draw districts across the nation and showing how the results would differ if either party did it unilaterally versus via our method. </p>
<p>Under traditional, one-party controlled redistricting, we find that 197 seats – almost half of the 435 in Congress – are in theory up for grabs, depending on who controls the redistricting process in each state. </p>
<p>But under our Define-Combine Procedure, the number of seats that change hands on a partisan basis drops to just 46, based on which party defines the half-districts and which one combines them into full districts.</p>
<p>Using our method of redistricting produces a fairer map. No matter which party is assigned the first step of the process, each party gets a share of districts determined more by its level of support among voters than who controls the redistricting process.</p>
<h2>A transition to a new method?</h2>
<p>We recognize that parties currently in control of the redistricting process are unlikely to give up that power by adopting our process. But there are important cases, such as in New York state, where both parties, or an independent commission, must produce a map. This happens, for instance, when judges order states to redraw their maps after a legal dispute.</p>
<p>Our method might be particularly useful in those circumstances to arrive at a map with which the parties can be equally happy – and unhappy. We hope the appeal of a process like ours will grow once it is used successfully to guide a map-drawing process. </p>
<p>In our view, fixing gerrymandering is crucial to maintaining the promise of American democracy. It is a difficult problem but not an intractable one. We suggest map drawers get back to basics and take inspiration from how we teach our children to treat each other fairly.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222859/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Electoral redistricting is a high-stakes political game, so Democrats and Republicans have a hard time playing fair. When they’re made to work together, a more representative result is possible.Benjamin Schneer, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy SchoolKevin DeLuca, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yale UniversityMaxwell Palmer, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2165502024-01-17T13:06:08Z2024-01-17T13:06:08ZIs our sense of fairness driven by selfishness? We’re studying the brain to find out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569302/original/file-20240115-17-bhx103.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=22%2C82%2C4954%2C3235&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Even kids know how to share.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/four-young-children-indoors-eating-pizza-15488146">Monkey Business Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We’ve all been there. You’re dying to grab that last piece of cake on the table during an office meeting, but you are not alone. Perhaps you just cut off a small piece – leaving something behind for your colleagues, who do exactly the same thing. And so you all watch the piece of cake getting smaller and smaller – with nobody wanting to take the last piece.</p>
<p>Whenever we make choices in a social setting about how much we want to share with others we must navigate between <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-you-a-true-altruist-or-driven-by-self-interest-brain-scan-may-give-verdict-55545">our own selfish interests</a> and social norms for fairness. </p>
<p>But how fair are we truly? And under which circumstances do we offer others a fair share of the cake? Neuroscientific research has started revealing answers. Our own team used electric brain stimulation on 60 volunteers to figure out which parts of the brain were involved.</p>
<p>Humans have a strong preference for proactively conforming to social norms – even if there’s no punishment for not doing so. This has been extensively studied with economic games in which participants can decide how to distribute an amount of money between themselves and others. </p>
<p>Past research suggests that we simply <a href="https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/114/3/817/1848113?redirectedFrom=fulltext">prefer an equal split</a> between ourselves and others. Interestingly, this is not only in situations when we are disadvantaged compared to others (disadvantageous inequity) and may have something to gain from the sharing of resources, but also in cases when we are better off than others (advantageous inequity).</p>
<p>This ultimately suggests that our sense of fairness isn’t solely driven by a selfish desire to be better off than others. </p>
<p>What’s more, the preference for a fair share between ourselves and others <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0042#Abs1">emerges early in childhood</a>, suggesting it is to some extent hardwired. </p>
<p>The willingness to equally share resources with others persists even at the expense of sacrificing personal benefits. And when others give us an unfair share, we often feel <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1129156?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed">a strong urge to punish them</a> to protect our own interest. However, we typically do this even if it means that both of us end up with nothing in the end.</p>
<p>This raises the question of which psychological mechanisms support actions of different types of fairness decisions. Depending on whether we or the others find ourselves in a less favourable position, do the same psychological mechanisms drive our willingness to ensure a fair share with others? </p>
<h2>Understanding others</h2>
<p>One explanation for our tendency to be fair, even when we are better off than others, is that we understand other people’s perspectives. This might in fact encourage our willingness to sacrifice personal benefits for them. </p>
<p>Therefore, by taking the other’s perspective into account, we try to create a more equal environment by reducing inequality. Research has suggested that a small brain region facilitates our ability to navigate complex social environments: the right temporo-parietal junction (rTPJ).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569784/original/file-20240117-27-4btohg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Image pinpointing the temporoparietal junction." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569784/original/file-20240117-27-4btohg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569784/original/file-20240117-27-4btohg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569784/original/file-20240117-27-4btohg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569784/original/file-20240117-27-4btohg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569784/original/file-20240117-27-4btohg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569784/original/file-20240117-27-4btohg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569784/original/file-20240117-27-4btohg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The temporoparietal junction.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">wikipedia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The rTPJ plays a crucial role in understanding the thoughts and perspectives of others and might therefore help us make pro-social decisions. Given this, it has been proposed that this brain region <a href="https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(12)00487-4?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627312004874%3Fshowall%3Dtrue">contributes to our willingness to sacrifice personal benefits</a> for the sake of others. </p>
<p>But what about when we’re not better off than others? It may be that advantageous and disadvantageous inequity are based on different psychological mechanisms, potentially represented in different brain regions. </p>
<p>Some researchers suggest that the right lateral prefrontal cortex (rLPFC), a brain region which drives the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2933">rejection of unfair offers</a> and promotes the decision to punish social norm violators, might be involved. This is what ultimately makes us dislike being treated unfairly, particularly by those who are better off than us – unleashing <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1082976">negative emotions such as anger or envy</a>.</p>
<h2>Overcoming selfish motives</h2>
<p>Our recent research <a href="https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/18/1/nsad061/7335678?login=true">offers new insights</a> and reveals that the rTPJ and the rLPFC do indeed play different roles when it comes to fairness. </p>
<p>In our experiment, 60 participants made fairness decisions while undergoing a non-invasive type of electric brain stimulation called <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7867505/">transcranial alternating current stimulation</a> – applying a current to the scalp over a certain brain area to make it active. This enabled us to assess the involvement of specific brain regions. </p>
<p>Specifically, our study explored whether the same brain rhythms underlie the processes involved in making fairness decisions and take another’s perspective into account. We did that by electrically stimulating each brain area with different types of oscillations, or rhythms, and seeing how that affected people’s fairness decisions.</p>
<p>Our findings provide direct evidence that oscillations in the rTPJ play a crucial role for switching between one’s own and the other’s perspective. And when we do that, it ultimately helps us make proactive, fair decisions that also benefit others. A different type of underlying oscillation in the rLPFC instead seems to make people more utilitarian to overcome their less favourable position.</p>
<p>Future research will need to explore this link more deeply. But it does seem that fairness is not only driven by restricting one’s own selfish desires – which makes sense when you consider that cooperation is probably the single <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.7466396">most important factor</a> in the evolutionary success of our species. Being selfish doesn’t always make us successful.</p>
<p>However, the process of trying to make fair decision is, as we all know, complex. The fact that there are different brain regions involved in doing so ultimately shows why this is the case.</p>
<p>We all have the capacity to be selfish. But we are also simply hardwired to balance our own perspective with understanding the minds of others – and empathising with them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216550/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patricia Christian receives funding for her postdoctoral fellowship from the Wenner-Gren foundation. She receives no funding from an organisation or company that would benefit from this article. </span></em></p>The preference for fairness emerges early in childhood, suggesting it is to some extent hardwired.Patricia Christian, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska InstitutetLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2061682023-05-26T18:01:24Z2023-05-26T18:01:24ZIncluding race in clinical algorithms can both reduce and increase health inequities – it depends on what doctors use them for<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528403/original/file-20230525-15-2tu1k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2121%2C1412&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An increasing number of health care decisions rely on information from algorithms.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/doctors-discussing-patients-test-results-royalty-free-image/1062188494">Tom Werner/Digital Vision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Health practitioners are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms2004740">increasingly concerned</a> that because race is a social construct, and the biological mechanisms of how race affects clinical outcomes are often unknown, including race in predictive algorithms for clinical decision-making may worsen inequities.</p>
<p>For example, to calculate an estimate of kidney function called the <a href="https://doi.org/10.7326%2F0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00006">estimated glomerular filtration rate, or eGFR</a>, health care providers use an algorithm based on age, biological sex, race (Black or non-Black) and serum creatinine, a waste product the kidneys release into the blood. A higher eGFR value means better kidney health. These eGFR predictions are used to <a href="https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/professionals/by-organ/kidney-pancreas/kidney-allocation-system/">allocate kidney transplants in the U.S.</a></p>
<p>Based on this algorithm, which was <a href="https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/race-and-egfr-what-controversy">trained on actual GFR values from patients</a>, a Black patient would be assigned a higher eGFR than a non-Black patient of the same age, sex and serum creatinine level. This implies that some Black patients would be considered to have healthier kidneys than otherwise similar non-Black patients and less likely to be assigned a kidney transplant.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1O7Ov1nxMc0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Biased clinical algorithms can lead to inaccurate diagnoses and delayed treatment.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2021, however, researchers found that excluding race in the original eGFR equations could <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2102953">lead to larger discrepancies</a> between estimated and actual GFR values for both Black and non-Black patients. They also found adding an additional biomarker called cystatin C can improve predictions. However, even with this biomarker, excluding race from the algorithm still led to elevated discrepanies across races.</p>
<p>I am a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=AR72duAAAAAJ&hl=en">health economist and statistician</a> who studies how unobserved factors in data can result in biases that lead to inefficiencies, inequities and disparities in health care. My recently published research suggests that excluding race from certain diagnostic algorithms <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add2704">could worsen health inequities</a>.</p>
<h2>Different approaches to fairness</h2>
<p>Researchers use <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economic-justice/">different economic frameworks</a> to understand how society allocates resources. Two key frameworks are utilitarianism and equality of opportunity.</p>
<p>A purely <a href="https://doi.org/10.3386/w30700">utilitarian outlook</a> seeks to identify what features would get the most out of a positive outcome or reduce the harm from a negative one, ignoring who possesses those features. This approach allocates resources to those with the most opportunities to generate positive outcomes or mitigate negative ones.</p>
<p>A utilitarian approach would always include race and ethnicity to improve the prediction power and accuracy of algorithms, regardless of whether it’s fair. For example, utilitarian policies would aim to maximize overall survival among people seeking organ transplants. They would allocate organs to those who would survive the longest from transplantation, even if those who may not survive the longest due to circumstances outside their control and need the organs most would die sooner without the transplant.</p>
<p>Although utilitarian approaches do not take fairness into account, an approach that does would ask two questions: How do we define fairness? Are there conditions when maximizing an algorithm’s prediction power and accuracy would not conflict with fairness?</p>
<p>To answer these questions, I apply the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/41106460">equality of opportunity</a> framework, which aims to allocate resources in a way that allows everyone the same chance of obtaining similar outcomes, without being disadvantaged by circumstances outside of their control. Researchers have used this framework in many contexts, such as <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/447264">political science</a>, <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo22415931.html">economics</a> and <a href="https://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/what-makes-discrimination-wrong/">law</a>. The U.S. Supreme Court has also applied equality of opportunity in <a href="https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/section-4-lawsuits/landmark-us-cases-related-equality-opportunity-k-12-education">several landmark rulings in education</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528406/original/file-20230525-21-rcdl1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Health care worker looking at tablet in an exam room" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528406/original/file-20230525-21-rcdl1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528406/original/file-20230525-21-rcdl1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528406/original/file-20230525-21-rcdl1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528406/original/file-20230525-21-rcdl1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528406/original/file-20230525-21-rcdl1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528406/original/file-20230525-21-rcdl1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528406/original/file-20230525-21-rcdl1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Including different variables in clinical algorithms can lead to very different results.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/unrecognizeable-person-using-digital-tablet-royalty-free-image/1421626437">SDI Productions/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Equality of opportunity</h2>
<p>There are two fundamental principles in equality of opportunity.</p>
<p>First, inequality of outcomes is unethical if it results from differences in circumstances that are outside of an individual’s own control, such as the income of a child’s parents, exposure to systemic racism or living in <a href="https://theconversation.com/black-mothers-trapped-in-unsafe-neighborhoods-signal-the-stressful-health-toll-of-gun-violence-in-the-u-s-203307">violent and unsafe environments</a>. This can be remedied by compensating individuals with disadvantaged circumstances in a way that allows them the same opportunity to obtain certain health outcomes as those who are not disadvantaged by their circumstances.</p>
<p>Second, inequality of outcomes for people in similar circumstances that result from differences in individual effort, such as practicing health-promoting behaviors like diet and exercise, is not unethical, and policymakers can reward those achieving better outcomes through such behaviors. However, differences in individual effort that occur because of circumstances, such as living in an area with <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-urban-planning-and-housing-policy-helped-create-food-apartheid-in-us-cities-154433">limited access to healthy food</a>, are not addressed under equality of opportunity. Keeping all circumstances the same, any differences in effort between individuals should be due to preferences, free will and perceived benefits and costs. This is called <a href="https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20151206">accountable effort</a>. So, two individuals with the same circumstances should be rewarded according to their accountable efforts, and society should accept the resulting differences in outcomes.</p>
<p>Equality of opportunity implies that if algorithms were to be used for clinical decision-making, then it is necessary to understand what causes variation in the predictions they make. </p>
<p>If variation in predictions results from differences in circumstances or biological conditions but not from individual accountable effort, then it is appropriate to use the algorithm for compensation, such as allocating kidneys so everyone has an equal opportunity to live the same length of life, but not for reward, such as allocating kidneys to those who would live the longest with the kidneys.</p>
<p>In contrast, if variation in predictions results from differences in individual accountable effort but not from their circumstances, then it is appropriate to use the algorithm for reward but not compensation.</p>
<h2>Evaluating clinical algorithms for fairness</h2>
<p>To hold machine learning and other artificial intelligence algorithms accountable to a standard of equity, I applied the principles of equality of opportunity to
<a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add2704">evaluate whether race should be included</a> in clinical algorithms. I ran simulations under both ideal data conditions, where all data on a person’s circumstances is available, and real data conditions, where some data on a person’s circumstances is missing.</p>
<p>In these simulations, I unequivocally assume that <a href="https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Race">race is a social and not biological construct</a>. Variables such as race and ethnicity are often <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/new-ama-policies-recognize-race-social-not-biological-construct">proxies for various circumstances</a> individuals face that are out of their control, such as systemic racism that contributes to health disparities.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/926PqQUOVOg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">As a social construct, race is often a proxy for nonbiological circumstances.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I evaluated two categories of algorithms.</p>
<p>The first, diagnostic algorithms, makes predictions based on outcomes that have already occurred at the time of decision-making. For example, diagnostic algorithms are used to predict the presence of gallstones in patients with abdominal pain or urinary tract infections, or to detect breast cancer using radiologic imaging.</p>
<p>The second, prognostic algorithms, predicts future outcomes that have not yet occurred at the time of decision-making. For example, prognostic algorithms are used to predict whether a patient will live if they do or do not obtain a kidney transplant.</p>
<p>I found that, under an equality of opportunity approach, diagnostic models that do not take race into account would <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add2704">increase systemic inequities and discrimination</a>. I found similar results for prognostic models intended to compensate for individual circumstances. For example, excluding race from algorithms that predict the future survival of patients with kidney failure would fail to identify those with underlying circumstances that make them more vulnerable.</p>
<p>Including race in prognostic models intended to reward individual efforts <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add2704">can also increase disparities</a>. For example, including race in algorithms that predict how much longer a person would live after a kidney transplant may fail to account for individual circumstances that could limit how much longer they live.</p>
<h2>Unanswered questions and future work</h2>
<p>Better biomarkers may one day be able to better predict health outcomes than race and ethnicity. Until then, including race in certain clinical algorithms could help reduce disparities.</p>
<p>Although my study uses an equality of opportunity framework to measure how race and ethnicity affect the results of prediction algorithms, researchers don’t know whether other ways to approach fairness would lead to different recommendations. How to choose between different approaches to fairness also remains to be seen. Moreover, there are questions about how multiracial groups should be coded in health databases and algorithms.</p>
<p><a href="https://sop.washington.edu/choice/">My colleagues and I</a> are exploring many of these unanswered questions to reduce algorithmic discrimination. We believe our work will readily extend to other areas outside of health, including education, crime and labor markets.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206168/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anirban Basu received funding support from a consortium of ten biomedical companies to the University of Washington through an unrestricted gift. </span></em></p>Biased algorithms in health care can lead to inaccurate diagnoses and delayed treatment. Deciding which variables to include to achieve fair health outcomes depends on how you approach fairness.Anirban Basu, Professor of Health Economics, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2012762023-03-16T12:31:11Z2023-03-16T12:31:11ZEvery teacher grades differently, which isn’t fair<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/515223/original/file-20230314-26-p8e1ao.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C8179%2C5457&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">For many teachers, grading is an individualized effort – not one consistent with other teachers.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/school-teacher-grading-some-tests-in-a-classroom-royalty-free-image/1451107412">andresr/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Students and parents have begun suing school districts over grading policies and practices they say are unfair. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://und.edu/directory/laura.link">scholar of education</a> who studies grading practices, I’ve seen how important grades are to schools, students and their families.</p>
<p>Grades are the primary basis for making important decisions about students. They determine whether students are promoted from one grade level to the next. They also determine honor roll status and enrollment in advanced or remedial classes, and they factor into special education services and college or university admissions. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2023/03/02/sat-act-test-optional-policies-covid-become-permanent/11385454002/">More than 1,800 colleges and universities</a> now allow applicants to choose whether they want to take the ACT or SAT. That means grades are more important in admissions decisions and <a href="https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/what-you-need-to-know-about-college-tuition-costs">scholarship awards</a> – and students and their parents know it.</p>
<p>In early 2022, a local political figure and his wife <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/education/bs-md-patterson-lawsuit-schools-20220127-20220127-bhu5jikoqjfvjoez4i7v4pyaii-story.html">sued Baltimore Public Schools</a>, claiming the city’s entire education system was not serving the public. They said <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/education/bs-md-augusta-fells-problems-20210408-npgkgnofl5g7vfpmwvx3tqk3wy-story.html">unfair grading practices</a> limited students’ academic access.</p>
<p>Later that year, a parent in Kentucky sued the local school district, alleging <a href="https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/education/article264905424.html">unfair grading practices</a> had tainted remote learning classes that had been established during the COVID-19 pandemic. </p>
<p>Those cases are still pending, but even <a href="https://my.aasa.org/AASA/Resources/SAMag/2021/May21/Link-Kauffman.aspx">as far back as 2007</a>, <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8278150">parents sued a West Virginia school district</a> because their daughter got a lower grade than expected on a biology project she turned in late. The lawsuit argued that the bad grade was unfair and hurt the student’s grade-point average, valedictorian status, scholarship potential and chances of getting into a good college. </p>
<p>These lawsuits show how important grades are to students and their parents.</p>
<h2>Teachers spend lots of time grading</h2>
<p>Teachers know how important grades are, too. In fact, teachers spend <a href="https://www.ascd.org/books/what-we-know-about-grading?variant=118062">over one-third of their professional work time</a> assessing and evaluating student learning. </p>
<p>But most university teacher-education programs focus on curriculum and instruction, with less attention given to assessment. My research has found that these programs do not talk about <a href="https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1168160">how to actually grade</a> student work.</p>
<p>In keeping with a <a href="https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edp_facpub/53/">long-held tradition in education</a>, teachers also have, and like, the autonomy to set their own practices. That results in <a href="https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1168160">inconsistency, inequity and even unreliability</a> in teachers’ grading practices.</p>
<p>For example, teachers decide if grades will be based on tests, quizzes, homework, participation, behavior, effort, extra credit or other evidence. When surveying over 15,000 teachers, administrators, support educators, parents and students, I found <a href="https://gradingrx.com">teachers use a wide range of evidence</a> in grades. While they primarily use tests, quizzes, projects, and homework to assign grades, teachers at all grade levels also include nonacademic evidence, like behavior and effort, in their grading equations. </p>
<p><iframe id="2wIET" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/2wIET/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Teachers also decide whether students will get a second chance to take tests if they fail on the first attempt, or be allowed to turn in work late, sometimes reducing their maximum possible grade. </p>
<p>Once teachers decide what to include in their grades, they decide how much weight to assign to each grade category. One teacher may weigh homework as 20% of the final course grade, while another teacher in the same grade level may choose a different weight or not grade homework at all.</p>
<p>In my work, I have talked to teachers who curve grades, especially at the end of a course when they discover lots of students did poorly. To curve, these teachers adjust grades by adding points to all students’ scores to bring the highest score up to 100%. Other teachers in the same school told me they do not grade on a curve. Instead, they add extra credit points to students’ final course grades if they attend a school event, such as a play. Some teachers told me they also add grade points if a student was never tardy to class or never missed an assignment deadline. </p>
<h2>Traditional grading is confusing and inaccurate</h2>
<p>Schools do often have a common grade system all teachers must use, such as a scale from zero to 100. But my research has found that it’s <a href="https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1168160">very rare</a> that all teachers in a district, or even a school or a grade level, use the same grading policies and procedures.</p>
<p>The variation among teachers’ grading policies and practices causes confusion for students and their parents. High school students, for instance, typically have seven different teachers each semester. That means they have to keep up with seven different grading policies and procedures – and cope with the obvious differences. </p>
<p>My research indicates that the effort to keep up with multiple teachers’ different grading expectations <a href="https://www.nassp.org/publication/principal-leadership/volume-21-2020-2021/principal-leadership-october-2020/viewpoint-october-2020/">causes students chronic stress and anxiety</a>, especially for those students with poor organizational, time-management and self-regulation skills. This is also the case for students competing for high grade-point averages and class rank. Still, students rarely question teachers’ grading or the grading differences between teachers. </p>
<p>It might seem unfair, for example, that one algebra teacher allows for extra credit to boost final course grades and another does not. But students have accepted these differences because this is <a href="https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edp_facpub/53/">how it’s always been</a>. And parents often pass these grading differences off as what they experienced in school themselves. </p>
<h2>Three ways to improve grading</h2>
<p>Grading consistency and effectiveness could be improved if universities’ teacher-training programs included <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107338">specific training on grading practices</a> in their educator preparation programs, but not any training will do. Evidence-based research on grading conducted over the past century identifies <a href="https://www.ascd.org/books/what-we-know-about-grading?variant=118062">ways grades can be effective, fair and accurate</a>.</p>
<p>First, grades are accurate and meaningful when they are based on reliable and valid evidence from classroom assessments. This information allows teachers to provide students and parents with feedback on learning progress, and to guide teachers’ own efforts to improve their teaching. For instance, an assessment strategy called <a href="https://www.aasa.org/resources/resource/feedback-for-teachers-what-evidence-do-teachers-find-most-useful">Mastery Learning</a> has been shown to improve student achievement and deliver reliable evidence upon which teachers can base grades.</p>
<p>Second, grading works best when students, parents, teachers, administrators and others in the school are <a href="https://gradingrx.com/">clear on the purpose of grades</a>. These groups have different beliefs and expectations, but clarity in grades can be achieved when they agree on grading intentions to then anchor policies and practices.</p>
<p><iframe id="pCg06" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/pCg06/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Third, grade reports that include three to five categories of performance more meaningfully <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107338">communicate students’ actual academic proficiency</a>. Reducing a grade to a single letter or number that incorporates many aspects of learning, including behavior and effort, does not inform anyone as clearly about what a student has achieved, needs or is ready for.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201276/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Link consults with school districts through GradingRx. </span></em></p>A scholar of grading explains how teachers can do a better job of reporting what grades represent, and what they are for.Laura Link, Assistant Professor of Teaching and Leadership, University of North DakotaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2014572023-03-15T12:21:28Z2023-03-15T12:21:28ZFines for breaking US pollution laws can vary widely among states – that may violate the Constitution<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514750/original/file-20230310-26-a6l0xr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C4%2C3000%2C1994&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Clean Water Act was meant to keep pollution out of U.S. waters.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/oil-surrounds-the-feet-of-local-resident-morgan-miller-as-news-photo/474029566">David McNew/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s expensive to pollute the water in Colorado. The state’s median fine for companies caught violating the federal Clean Water Act is over US$30,000, and violators can be charged much more. In Montana, however, most violators get barely a slap on the wrist – the median fine there is $300.</p>
<p>Similarly, in Virginia, the typical Clean Water Act violation issued by the state is $9,000, while across the border in North Carolina, the median is around $600.</p>
<p>Even federal penalties vary significantly among regions. In the South (EPA Region 6) the median Clean Water Act penalty issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional office is $10,000, while in EPA Region 9 (including California, Nevada, Arizona and Hawaii), the median is over six times as high.</p>
<p>We discovered just how startling the differences are in <a href="http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/I_Anderson-Vaughan_web_2-20.pdf">a new study</a>, published in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal. My colleague <a href="https://www.drake.edu/zimpleman/about/facultystaff/facultybydepartment/amygracevaughan/">Amy Vaughan</a> and <a href="https://www.drake.edu/law/facstaff/directory/jerry-anderson/">I reviewed</a> 10 years of <a href="https://echo.epa.gov/trends/comparative-maps-dashboards/state-water-dashboard">EPA data on penalties</a> issued under the Clean Water Act.</p>
<p><iframe id="qTRcu" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/qTRcu/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The degree of disparity we found in environmental enforcement is disturbing for many reasons. Persistent lenient penalties can lead to lower compliance rates and, therefore, more pollution. At the extreme, a lax enforcement regime can <a href="https://capitalandmain.com/can-california-avoid-another-toxic-waste-disaster">lead to environmental disasters</a>. Disparate enforcement is also unfair, leaving some companies paying far more than others for the same behavior. Without a level playing field, competitive pressure may lead companies to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjaa031">locate in areas with more lenient enforcement</a>.</p>
<p>There is a relatively simple solution, and another good reason to implement it: These disparities may violate the U.S. Constitution.</p>
<h2>Why such big differences?</h2>
<p>We think the main reason for the differences is that the EPA has not fulfilled its duty to require robust state enforcement.</p>
<p>Many federal environmental statutes – including the <a href="http://epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act">Clean Water Act</a>, the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act">Clean Air Act</a> and toxic substances laws – enable the EPA to delegate enforcement to state agencies. In fact, state agencies undertake the <a href="https://www.ecos.org/documents/state-delegations/">vast majority of enforcement actions</a> of these federal laws.</p>
<p>However, the EPA is supposed to delegate enforcement only to states that are deemed capable of taking on this responsibility, including having the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/clean-water-act-section-402-national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system">ability to issue permits and conduct inspections</a>. Importantly, the states must have laws authorizing an agency or the courts to impose sufficient penalties on violators.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Water spills out of a pipe into a river." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Federal laws like the Clean Water Act helped end corporate practices of pouring toxic wastewater into rivers, as this paper plant was doing near International Falls, Minn., in 1937.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/paper-plants-sewer-outlet-emitting-sewage-into-the-rainy-news-photo/964952020">Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most state delegations occurred long ago, in the 1970s and ‘80s, shortly after Congress passed these major environmental statutes. In 1978, EPA decided that it would <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-70#70.11">require states to have a minimum</a> of $5,000-per-day penalty authority before they would be delegated enforcement power for the Clean Water Act. Forty-five years later, that required minimum is still the same.</p>
<p>In contrast, the Clean Water Act gives the EPA and federal courts much <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/clean-water-act-section-309-federal-enforcement-authority">higher penalty authority</a> – it started at $25,000 per day and, because of congressionally mandated <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-01/2022amendmentstopenaltypoliciesforinflation_0.pdf">annual inflation adjustments</a>, had risen to $56,540 by the end of 2022.</p>
<p>That difference shows up in the fines: We found the <a href="http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/I_Anderson-Vaughan_web_2-20.pdf">average penalty issued by states</a> is about $35,000, while the average penalty issued by the federal EPA is over five times as high at $186,000. The median state penalty is $4,000, while the median federal penalty is almost $30,000. While the EPA tends to be involved in the most serious cases, we believe low state penalties can also be traced to more lenient state penalty provisions.</p>
<p><iframe id="5KduF" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5KduF/6/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>There is also a <a href="http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/I_Anderson-Vaughan_web_2-20.pdf">wide disparity among state</a> penalty statutes. At one end, Idaho law limits civil penalties to $5,000 per day, while Colorado’s law allows for penalties of up to $54,833 per day.</p>
<p>In some cases, penalty differences might have a legitimate explanation. However, the degree of disparity among statutes and penalties that we found with the Clean Water Act suggests the U.S. doesn’t have uniform federal environmental law. And that can run afoul of the Constitution.</p>
<h2>A question of unconstitutional unfairness</h2>
<p>The EPA has the power to require states to have more robust penalty provisions, more in line with federal penalties. The EPA also can provide better guidance to the states about how those penalties should be calculated. Without guidance, virtually any penalty could be justified.</p>
<p>As an environmental law expert, I believe the U.S. Constitution requires EPA to take these steps.</p>
<p>A basic tenet of fairness holds that like cases should be treated alike. In federal criminal law, for example, <a href="https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/overview/Overview_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines.pdf">sentencing guidelines</a> help limit the disparity that can result from unlimited judicial discretion.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, environmental law doesn’t have a similar system to provide uniform treatment of pollution violations by government agencies. Extreme penalties, at both the high and low ends, may result.</p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court has held that disparate fines can reach a degree of randomness that violates the fairness norms embodied in the <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-3/ALDE_00013743/">due process clause</a> of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.</p>
<p>In a case in the 1990s, the <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/559/">Supreme Court determined</a> that a $4 million punitive damage award in a complaint involving only $4,000 in actual damages violated the due process clause. The court held that the amount of punitive damages imposed must bear some relationship to the actual harm caused by the conduct. Moreover, the court noted that punitive damages must be reasonable when compared to penalties imposed on others for comparable misconduct.</p>
<p>I believe the same test should apply to environmental penalties. </p>
<p>Unless we have some uniform system of calculating penalty amounts, the discretion allowed results in vastly different penalties for similar conduct. Our study focused on the Clean Water Act, but the results should trigger more research to determine whether these issues arise in other environmental areas, such as the Clean Air Act or hazardous waste laws.</p>
<p>The comparatively lenient enforcement we discovered in some states is not only unfair, it’s ultimately bad for the environment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201457/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jerry Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new study reveals wide disparities among state-issued Clean Water Act fines, and even among federal fines from regions to region. A law professor explains why it may be illegal.Jerry Anderson, Dean and Professor of Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1886122022-08-16T16:08:18Z2022-08-16T16:08:18ZDoes entitlement make you more likely to cheat? New research challenges popular psychology idea<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478897/original/file-20220812-3923-gpzhuu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6016%2C4016&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Do you cheat at dice games?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/dice-430194097">beeboys/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Why do people cheat? <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1515102113">An intriguing study</a> by two Israeli researchers in 2016 put forward a possible reason that has since become well established in the scientific literature and popular media.</p>
<p>The researchers reported a series of experiments apparently showing that people told they have won a skill-based competition, such as a visual task, subsequently cheat more than others in games of chance, such as dice games. The proposed explanation was that winners experienced a sense of entitlement that induced them to cheat.</p>
<p>The paper has been highly cited by other researchers. One scientific comment paper even pointed out its significance <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2017.00417/full">in the light of tax evasion</a> costing governments US$3.1 trillion (£2.6 trillion) annually. </p>
<p>But does the finding hold up to scientific scrutiny? We decided to replicate the study and investigate more closely the reasons why people do or don’t cheat.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FOeoGpgX8AE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Our new study, <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.202197">published in Royal Society Open Science</a>, failed twice to replicate the original finding. We found that the original experiments were “statistically underpowered”, meaning they used far too few experimental participants (43 in their main experiment) to sustain the conclusions that were drawn. </p>
<p>There were also problems of experimental design and methodology, notably a failure to randomly decide which participants were winners, losers, or part of a control group that weren’t told how they had done in the skill-based competition.</p>
<p>We began by replicating the original research as closely as possible, but in a large-scale experiment (252 participants) to achieve adequate statistical power. We also assigned participants randomly to conditions. </p>
<p>To assign winners and losers, we used the perceptual judgement test used in the original experiment. The test involves the difficult task of estimating which of several different symbols is the most numerous in briefly displayed slides similar to the one shown below.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478894/original/file-20220812-1300-whppmy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Faces shown in the perception test." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478894/original/file-20220812-1300-whppmy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478894/original/file-20220812-1300-whppmy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478894/original/file-20220812-1300-whppmy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478894/original/file-20220812-1300-whppmy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478894/original/file-20220812-1300-whppmy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478894/original/file-20220812-1300-whppmy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478894/original/file-20220812-1300-whppmy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Which face do you see most of?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We put the participants in pairs and told them whether they had a better or worse score than their partner in the skill task. They were then put in new pairs and played a game of chance. The pairs then played a game of chance, also identical to the game in the original research. This involved rolling two dice under an inverted cup and then peeking through a spyhole in its base to see the result. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Image of a cup and two dice." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479120/original/file-20220815-485-7ffri6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479120/original/file-20220815-485-7ffri6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479120/original/file-20220815-485-7ffri6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479120/original/file-20220815-485-7ffri6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479120/original/file-20220815-485-7ffri6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479120/original/file-20220815-485-7ffri6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479120/original/file-20220815-485-7ffri6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dice game.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The players were told to help themselves to money from an envelope provided depending on what numbers the dice showed – 25 pence for each dice spot. While it was impossible to tell who in particular cheated, collecting much significantly more than the average amount was evidence of cheating.</p>
<p>We also assigned one-third of the participants to a control group. They were not told whether or not they had beaten their partner in the visual task before playing the the dice game.</p>
<p>Comparing the results to what we’d expect to happen by chance, a small but statistically significant amount of cheating seemed to have occurred, as in the original Israeli experiment. But our results showed no evidence that winning (or losing) had any statistically significant effect whatsoever on cheating, as can be seen in the graph below, where the dotted line shows the value expected by chance, without cheating.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Graph showing the amount of money taken by winners, losers and control participants." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478893/original/file-20220812-14-jca53y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478893/original/file-20220812-14-jca53y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478893/original/file-20220812-14-jca53y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478893/original/file-20220812-14-jca53y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478893/original/file-20220812-14-jca53y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478893/original/file-20220812-14-jca53y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478893/original/file-20220812-14-jca53y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Winners weren’t significantly more likely to cheat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We also ran an even larger online experiment (275 participants) in which we assigned participants randomly to be winners, losers or control participants using the same perceptual test as before. </p>
<p>In this experiment, each participant tossed a coin ten times and claimed rewards (Amazon gift vouchers) depending on how many heads they tossed. The results were almost identical to our first experiment: we found a similar level of cheating and no evidence of any effect of winning or losing on subsequent cheating. </p>
<p>We used standardised psychometric tests designed to measure differences between people that might influence cheating, including a sense of entitlement, self-confidence, belief in personal luck, and a few other factors. But only one, turned out to be statistically significant in all treatment conditions. </p>
<p>Participants who dislike inequality cheated less than others. This is presumably because they had a stronger sense of fairness and considered cheating unfair. A sense of entitlement, on the other hand, was not significantly associated with cheating in any condition. </p>
<p>Ultimately, what makes some people cheat more than others is not fully understood. But our research suggests people’s feelings about inequality is one part of the explanation. There are also momentary circumstantial factors that encourage some people, but not others, to cheat.</p>
<h2>Psychology in crisis</h2>
<p>The original Israeli experiment does not replicate, and it should be viewed in the context of what’s known as the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v778svukrtU">replication or reproducibility crisis</a> in psychology. This refers to the fact that many recorded scientific findings <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612465253">are impossible to reproduce</a> when experiments are repeated. </p>
<p>One of the principal drivers of the crisis is inadequate statistical power, meaning the use of sample sizes that are too small to yield trustworthy results. Our two experiments had extremely high (95%) statistical power, as required by the publisher of our registered report. </p>
<p>Another driver of the crisis is “publication bias”, which is when articles with a positive result are more likely to be published than those with a negative one.
Factors such as “p-hacking” (performing multiple different statistical tests on data until one of them turns out to be significant) and harking (creating a hypothesis after results are known) are also to blame. </p>
<p>Registered reports, in which investigators submit research proposals, including hypotheses and planned statistical tests before the research is undertaken, can ultimately help eliminate most of the drivers of the replication crisis. Such an approach will no doubt one day help us uncover other reasons why people cheat.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188612/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>People who have a strong sense of fairness are less likely to cheat.Andrew M Colman, Professor of Psychology, University of LeicesterMarta Mangiarulo, Teaching Fellow, Research Assistant, School of Psychology, University of LeicesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1788212022-03-28T15:13:44Z2022-03-28T15:13:44ZSouth Africans have low trust in their police. Here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/454096/original/file-20220324-25-lrsaeg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A culture of better service and use of minimal force are key to improving public confidence in the South African Police Service. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">GCIS/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The legitimacy of legal authorities is recognised globally as crucial for the state’s ability to function in a justifiable and effective manner. This applies, in particular, to the police. Recently, South Africa’s Defence Minister Thandi Modise lamented the <a href="https://www.defenceweb.co.za/featured/sas-safety-and-security-machinery-will-be-restored-security-cluster/">low level of public trust</a> in law enforcement agencies in the country.</p>
<p>In particular, the minister, who also heads the country’s <a href="https://www.gov.za/about-government/justice-crime-prevention-and-security-cluster">Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster</a>, drew attention to a persisting legitimacy problem in the relationship between the police and the public.</p>
<p>To provide further context to the extent and nature of this challenge, we examine representative survey data on trends in police confidence since the late 1990s. The data shows that public trust in the police has been low throughout most of the democratic period. Between 2020 and 2021, however, there was significant drop in the level of trust ordinary people had in the police. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/media-briefs/dces/changing-patterns-of-trust-in-sa-police">Our research</a> outlines some of the drivers of general attitudes towards the law enforcement. We hope that this work will be used to design interventions to restore the public’s faith in the police. </p>
<h2>Tracking confidence in the police</h2>
<p>Views on crime and policing in the country have been a thematic priority in the <a href="http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/departments/sasas">South African Social Attitudes Survey series</a> since its inception in 2003. This series is conducted annually by the <a href="http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en">Human Sciences Research Council</a> using face-to-face interviews, and has been designed to be nationally representative of the adult population aged 16 years and above. Each year, between 2500 and 3200 people are interviewed countrywide. The data are weighted using <a href="http://www.statssa.gov.za/">Statistics South Africa</a>’s most recent mid-year population estimates.</p>
<p>The survey series builds on earlier representative public opinion surveying at the council known as Evaluation of Public Opinion Programme series. On certain topics (such as policing) this allows us to extend the period of analysis back to before the early 2000s.</p>
<p>The pattern of public confidence in the police over the 1998 to 2021 period is presented in Figure 1. Trust levels have remained relatively low over this period. Not once during this 23-year interval did more than half the adult public say that they trusted the police. It would seem that the issue of low trust in the police is not new. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451099/original/file-20220309-27-9zhl8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 1: Confidence in the police, 1998-2021 (% trust/ strongly trust)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">HSRC EPOP 1998-2001; HSRC SASAS 2003-2021</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Between 1998 to 2010, the average level of trust in the police was relatively static. It ranged between 39% and 42% in all but a few years. This was followed by a sharp decline between 2011 and 2013, following the <a href="https://ewn.co.za/2021/08/16/the-marikana-massacre-s-effect-on-the-law-and-sa-s-union-landscape">killing by police of 34 striking miners at Marikana</a>, North West Province, in August 2012. But confidence had almost returned to the 2011 level by 2015. </p>
<p>The 2016 to 2020 period was characterised by modest fluctuation between 31% and 35%. The <a href="https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/president-ramaphosa-announces-nationwide-lockdown">hard COVID-19 lockdown</a> imposed by the state <a href="https://www.gov.za/covid-19/about/about-alert-system">in 2020</a> saw <a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/africasource/pandemic-policing-south-africas-most-vulnerable-face-a-sharp-increase-in-police-related-brutality/">instances</a> of police brutality. However, we did not observe a decline in public confidence in the police during the the 2020 period.</p>
<p>In 2021 public trust in the police dipped to a low 27%. This appears to be linked to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-lies-behind-social-unrest-in-south-africa-and-what-might-be-done-about-it-166130">July 2021 social unrest</a>. Many have <a href="https://ewn.co.za/2022/02/21/in-quotes-cele-explains-how-saps-fell-short-in-responding-to-july-unrest">criticised</a> the police for poor performance of during the unrest. </p>
<p>Substantial provincial variation in trust in the police underlies this national trend (Table 1). Looking at the 2011-2021 period, we find that adults in the Western Cape, Limpopo and Gauteng provinces have consistently reported lower levels of trust in the police than the national average. The country has nine provinces.</p>
<p>The distinct decline in trust observed between 2020 and 2021 was unevenly reflected across provinces. The largest decline was in the Western Cape. It fell more than 20 percentage points, greatly exceeding the national decline of 7 percentage points. This may reflect a failure to rein in <a href="https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/we-need-each-other-pleads-western-cape-police-boss-at-emotional-community-meeting-on-crime-20220315">gangsterism</a> in that province. More moderate (but still sizeable) declines were identified in Limpopo, Northern Cape, and Gauteng.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=187&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=187&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=187&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=235&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=235&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451096/original/file-20220309-20-144x2sw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=235&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Table 1: Provincial trends in police confidence, 2011-2021 (% trust / strongly trust)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">HSRC SASAS 2011-2021</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Factors affecting confidence in the police</h2>
<p>Based on the survey evidence, various factors influence public trust in, and legitimacy of, the police in South Africa. These are briefly summarised below. </p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Experiences of crime:</strong> Those who had been recent victims of crime displayed significantly lower levels of trust in the police. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Fear of crime:</strong> Higher levels of fear are associated with lower trust in the police. This applies to classic measures such as fear of walking alone in one’s area after dark, as well as worrying about home robbery or violent assault. These associations have been found across multiple rounds of surveying. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Experiences of policing:</strong> Negative experiences with police have a bearing on how the public judge police. Those reporting unsatisfactory personal contact with police officers expressed lower trust levels than those reporting satisfactory contact. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Well publicised instances of police abuse or failure</strong>: These can also reduce public confidence in police. Apart from the the <a href="https://theconversation.com/marikana-shining-the-light-on-police-militarisation-and-brutality-in-south-africa-44162">2012 Marikana massacre</a>, another prominent example is the perceived ineffectiveness of the police in responding to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-lies-behind-social-unrest-in-south-africa-and-what-might-be-done-about-it-166130">July 2021 social unrest</a>. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Perceptions of police corruption:</strong> These have a strong, negative effect on confidence in police. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Perceived fairness and effectiveness:</strong> <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rego.12012">Past in-depth research</a> has shown that the South African public strongly emphasises both fairness and effectiveness as important elements in their overall assessments of confidence in police. The more the police are seen to be acting unfairly on the basis of race, class or other attributes, the more people are likely to view them as untrustworthy.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Similarly, perceptions that the police treat people disrespectfully, lack impartiality in their decision making, or transparency in their actions, can also undermine public confidence. If the police are seen as ineffective in preventing, reducing and responding to crime, this will also diminish confidence. </p>
<p>Another factor influencing how the public view the police is the broader evaluation of the government’s democratic performance and trustworthiness. Importantly, public confidence in democratic institutions has shown a strong downward trend over the <a href="http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/research-data/view/7843">past 15 years</a>. This has had a bearing on confidence in the police.</p>
<h2>Polishing the tarnished badge</h2>
<p>Low and diminishing confidence in the police, if left unchecked, will continue to undermine police legitimacy in South Africa. Recent recommendations put forward by the <a href="https://issafrica.org/">Institute of Security Studies</a> could improve public attitudes towards the police. </p>
<p>They include dispensing with an excessively hierarchical police culture, promoting <a href="https://issafrica.org/iss-today/sa-police-failures-demand-urgent-reform-before-its-too-late">competent and ethical police leadership</a>, as well as strengthening other parts of the overall system of police governance. </p>
<p>Key also is the implementation of a <a href="https://issafrica.org/iss-today/south-africas-police-a-rigid-bureaucracy-struggling-to-reform">non-militaristic policing ethos</a>. This should be framed around a service culture and use of minimal force. It also requires police to put more measures in place to monitor and control the use of force, and promote a <a href="https://issafrica.org/research/southern-africa-report/how-to-reduce-police-brutality-in-south-africa">culture of police accountability</a>.</p>
<p>These ideas warrant serious attention. They matter fundamentally for preventing further instances of <a href="https://mg.co.za/politics/2021-04-25-when-violence-is-policy-how-do-we-curb-police-brutality/">police misuse of force</a>, <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-03-22-the-collateral-damage-of-south-africas-police-leadership-feud-sees-civilians-vulnerable-while-crime-spirals/">corruption</a> among senior officials, and <a href="https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/560270/the-crimes-that-are-getting-worse-in-south-africa/">police ineffectiveness</a> in handling crime. This is crucial for stemming and reversing the eroding confidence in the badge.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178821/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Roberts receives funding from various government and non-government institutions for commissioned research as part of the HSRC South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS) series. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Gordon is employed at the Human Sciences Research Council. He is affiliated with the University of Johannesburg. </span></em></p>Perceptions that South African police treat people disrespectfully, lack impartiality or transparency, and are prone to brutality
undermine public confidence in them.Benjamin Roberts, Acting Strategic Lead: Developmental, Capable and Ethical State (DCES) research division, and Coordinator of the South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS), Human Sciences Research CouncilSteven Gordon, Senior Research Specialist., Human Sciences Research CouncilLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1715902021-11-21T18:56:06Z2021-11-21T18:56:06ZAlgorithms can decide your marks, your work prospects and your financial security. How do you know they’re fair?<p>Algorithms are becoming commonplace. They can determine employment prospects, <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/banks-warned-using-ai-in-loan-assessments-could-awaken-a-zombie-20210615-p5814i">financial security</a> and more. The use of algorithms can be controversial – for example, <a href="https://www.innovationaus.com/robodebt-was-technology-beta-testing-on-most-vulnerable-citizens/">robodebt</a>, as the Australian government’s flawed online welfare compliance system came to be known. </p>
<p>Algorithms are increasingly being used to make decisions that have a lasting impact on our current and future lives. </p>
<p>Some of the greatest impacts of algorithmic decision-making are in education. If you have anything to do with an Australian school or a university, at some stage an algorithm will make a decision that matters for you. </p>
<p>So what sort of decisions might involve algorithms? Some decisions will involve the next question for school students to answer on a test, such as the <a href="https://nap.edu.au/online-assessment/research-and-development/tailored-tests">online provision of NAPLAN</a>. Some algorithms support <a href="https://theconversation.com/artificial-intelligence-holds-great-potential-for-both-students-and-teachers-but-only-if-used-wisely-81024">human decision-making in universities</a>, such as identifying students at risk of failing a subject. Others take the human out of the loop, like some forms of <a href="https://theconversation.com/online-exam-monitoring-is-now-common-in-australian-universities-but-is-it-here-to-stay-159074">online exam supervision</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/unis-are-using-artificial-intelligence-to-keep-students-sitting-exams-honest-but-this-creates-its-own-problems-170708">Unis are using artificial intelligence to keep students sitting exams honest. But this creates its own problems</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How do algorithms work?</h2>
<p>Despite their pervasive impacts on our lives, it is often difficult to understand how algorithms work, why they have been designed, and why they are used. As algorithms become a key part of decision-making in education – and many other aspects of our lives – people need to know two things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>how algorithms work</p></li>
<li><p>the kinds of trade-offs that are made in decision-making using algorithms.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In research to explore these two issues, we developed <a href="https://www.edufuturesstudio.com/uk-exam-algorithm-game">an algorithm game</a> using participatory methodologies to involve diverse stakeholders in the research. The process becomes a form of collective experimentation to encourage new perspectives and insights into an issue. </p>
<p>Our algorithm game is based on the <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/17/21372045/uk-a-level-results-algorithm-biased-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic-university-applications">UK exam controversy</a> in 2020. During COVID-19 lockdowns, an <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/08/26/fk-the-algorithm-what-the-world-can-learn-from-the-uks-a-level-grading-fiasco/">algorithm was used to determine grades</a> for students wishing to attend university. The algorithm predicted grades for some students that were far lower than expected. In the face of protests, the algorithm was eventually scrapped. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1298725638174457857"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/scotlands-exam-result-crisis-assessment-and-social-justice-in-a-time-of-covid-19-144248">Scotland's exam result crisis: assessment and social justice in a time of COVID-19</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://education-futures-studio.sydney.edu.au/education-futures-studio/workbench/">Our interdisciplinary team</a> co-designed the UK exam algorithm game over a series of two workshops and multiple meetings this year. Our workshops included students, data scientists, ethicists and social scientists. Such interdisciplinary perspectives are vital to understand the range of social, ethical and technical implications of algorithms in education. </p>
<h2>Algorithms make trade-offs, so transparency is needed</h2>
<p>The UK example highlights key issues with using algorithms in society, including issues of transparency and bias in data. These issues matter everywhere, including <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/scott-morrison-warns-high-tech-race-must-consider-ethical-implications-for-human-rights/09268bbc-d7a9-4dd6-81f9-f531a59c887c">Australia</a>.</p>
<p>We designed the algorithm game to help people develop the tools to have more of a say in shaping the world algorithms are creating. Algorithm “games” invite people to play with and learn about the parameters of how an algorithm operates. Examples include games that show people how algorithms are used in <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/17/75285/ai-fairer-than-judge-criminal-risk-assessment-algorithm/">criminal sentencing</a>, or can help to <a href="https://automating.nyc/#toyAlgo">predict fire risk in buildings</a> </p>
<p>There is a growing public awareness that algorithms, especially those used in forms of artificial intelligence, need to be understood as raising <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05469-3">issues of fairness</a>. But while everyone may have a vernacular understanding of what is fair or unfair, when algorithms are used numerous trade-offs are involved. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/from-robodebt-to-racism-what-can-go-wrong-when-governments-let-algorithms-make-the-decisions-132594">From robodebt to racism: what can go wrong when governments let algorithms make the decisions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In our algorithm game, we take people through a series of problems where the solution to a fairness problem simply introduces a new one. For example, the UK algorithm did not work very well for predicting the grades of students in schools where smaller numbers of students took certain subjects. This was unfair for these students. </p>
<p>The solution meant the algorithm was not used for these often <a href="https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2020/08/a-level-results-2020-why-independent-schools-have-done-well-out-of-this-years-awarding-process/">very privileged schools</a>. These students then received grades predicted by their teachers. But these grades were mostly higher than the algorithm-generated grades received by students in larger schools, which were more often government comprehensive schools. So this meant the decision was fair for students in small schools, unfair for those in larger schools who had grades allocated by the algorithm. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1296435366153596928"}"></div></p>
<p>What we try to show in our game that it is not possible to have a perfect outcome. And that neither humans or algorithms will make a set of choices that are fair for everyone. This means we have to make decisions about which values matter when we use algorithms. </p>
<h2>Public must have a say to balance the power of EdTech</h2>
<p>While our algorithm game focuses on the use of an algorithm developed by a government, algorithms in education are commonly introduced as part of educational technology. The EdTech industry is <a href="https://www.pwc.com.au/government/government-matters/education-tech-edtech-revolutionise-education-institutions.html">expanding rapidly in Australia</a>. Companies are seeking to dominate all stages of education: enrolment, learning design, learning experience and lifelong learning. </p>
<p>Alongside these developments, COVID-19 has accelerated the use of algorithmic decision-making in education and beyond. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/artificial-intelligence-holds-great-potential-for-both-students-and-teachers-but-only-if-used-wisely-81024">Artificial intelligence holds great potential for both students and teachers – but only if used wisely</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While these innovations open up amazing possibilities, algorithms also bring with them a set of challenges we must face as a society. Examples like the UK exam algorithm expose us to how such algorithms work and the kinds of decisions that have to be made when designing them. We are then forced to answer deep questions of which values we will choose to prioritise and what <a href="https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Ethical-and-Societal-Implications-of-Data-and-AI-report-Nuffield-Foundat.pdf">roadmap for research</a> we take forward. </p>
<p>Our choices will shape our future and the future of generations to come. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>The following people were also involved in the research underpinning the algorithm game. From the <a href="https://gradientinstitute.org">Gradient Institute</a> for responsible AI, Simon O'Callaghan, Alistair Reid and Tiberio Caetano. And from the <a href="https://www.techforsocialgood.org">Tech for Social Good</a> group, Vincent Zhang.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171590/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kalervo Gulson receives funding from the Australian Research Council that supported this research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claire Benn, Kirsty Kitto, Simon Knight, and Teresa Swist do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A UK controversy about school leavers’ marks shows algorithms can get things wrong. To ensure algorithms are as fair as possible, how they work and the trade-offs involved must be made clear.Kalervo Gulson, Professor and ARC Future Fellow, Education & Social Work, Education Futures Studio, University of SydneyClaire Benn, Research Fellow, Humanising Machine Intelligence Grand Challenge, Australian National UniversityKirsty Kitto, Associate Professor in Data Science, University of Technology SydneySimon Knight, Senior Lecturer and Director, Centre for Research on Education in a Digital Society, University of Technology SydneyTeresa Swist, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Education Futures Studio, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1688322021-10-25T12:32:31Z2021-10-25T12:32:31ZGirls learn early that they don’t have much of a place in politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426728/original/file-20211015-17-e1jkw1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C2%2C681%2C429&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">As they grow older, girls increasingly see political leadership as a “man’s world.”</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bos, Angie et al</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the United States, women express <a href="https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/18/are-women-less-interested-in-politics-than-men">less interest</a> in politics and <a href="https://womenrun.rutgers.edu/2020-report/">run for political office</a> at lower rates than men. These gaps threaten democracy because they distort representation: Women <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/current-numbers">make up</a> 26.7% of members of Congress and 31% of state legislators, despite making up <a href="https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/SEX255219">50.8%</a> of the population.</p>
<p>Imbalances like this threaten <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Inequality_and_American_Democracy/8PIWAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=gender+inequality+threat+democracy&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover">core values</a> of representational democracy like fairness, inclusion and equality. They reduce the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1554477X.2016.1198206?casa_token=R7Eo2GIqFQ0AAAAA%3AjsByFQalhDNwanNyfLKhCeyiyk7Rsi3VpgE5B6l7cdgrI6mmDozdA14i_HrItq8rel7A623RuTe4">quality of policies</a> produced by political bodies. </p>
<p>Similarly, even though women make up the majority of <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-university-fall-higher-education-men-women-enrollment-admissions-back-to-school-11630948233">college students</a>, they run for and win <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/on-college-campuses-a-gender-gap-in-student-government/2011/03/10/ABim1Bf_story.html">fewer student government positions</a>. </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12268?casa_token=c1B6TYCgB9MAAAAA%3A8HVBG_gMTz0A_fMkwQQzvuTxvavp3eiLdyBNdz2hRAYAS8T-sSQd5o-TMJiVvH6vBjRoc5rIjDnt7IY">research</a> <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12573?casa_token=oiHjDGGHCVAAAAAA%3AC1bEX_If8ndfH2ASlX8FflhoJLQuM-GHesOJTICDix1WnCo152rt0O6WSsZe9BI_PHdygN_lDtKs2u8">team</a> has <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1554477X.2016.1219590">spent</a> a lot of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21565503.2014.992792">time</a> <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21565503.2015.1002668?journalCode=rpgi20">studying</a> these gaps, building on research that shows this lack of representation is associated with the fact that women are <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/research-frontier-essay-when-are-interests-interesting-the-problem-of-political-representation-of-women/281F0B77E3F11E150309A2F863598F7B">less interested</a> in politics and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-018-9498-9">less likely</a> to run for office than men. </p>
<p>Organizations like <a href="https://emergeamerica.org/">Emerge America</a> and <a href="https://cawp.rutgers.edu/education_training/ready_to_run/overview">Ready to Run</a> tackle this problem by training women to run for public office and <a href="https://emilyslist.org/">raising</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/viewpac?lang=en">money</a> for women candidates, even as <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/2020-gender-race">fundraising</a> and <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/to-emerge-breadwinning-motherhood-and-womens-decisions-to-run-for-office/16CFA17A7101E03DEFB1363B9BA5080A">resource</a> gaps persist between men and women running for office.</p>
<p>We asked: What if these differences in political interest and ambition start at a much earlier age? </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426727/original/file-20211015-18-7tavt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A child's drawing of Hillary Clinton, wearing a blue pantsuit and standing between two trees." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426727/original/file-20211015-18-7tavt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426727/original/file-20211015-18-7tavt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426727/original/file-20211015-18-7tavt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426727/original/file-20211015-18-7tavt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426727/original/file-20211015-18-7tavt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426727/original/file-20211015-18-7tavt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426727/original/file-20211015-18-7tavt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One third grade girl’s drawing of Hillary Clinton. ‘Hillery Clinton is picking apples for the city. Hillery Clinton is picking oranges for the city,’ the girl wrote.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bos, Angie et al</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Drawings help tell story</h2>
<p>We set out to understand if gender gaps in interest appear as early as elementary school by surveying and interviewing more than 1,600 children, grades one through six. </p>
<p>Interviewing children about politics is a challenge. Many young children are not familiar with the political parties or terms like “Congress” or “Supreme Court.” So we developed a new tool: the Draw A Political Leader prompt. </p>
<p>Inspired by the “<a href="https://www.edutopia.org/article/50-years-children-drawing-scientists">Draw a Scientist</a>” task in research on gender gaps in STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – we asked kids to draw an image of a political leader. We asked our young respondents to tell us what the leaders in their pictures were doing and to describe the characteristics of the leader. </p>
<p>We also asked these children about their interest in politics and their interest in a variety of careers, including whether they would want to hold political office when they grew up. </p>
<p>We use these images and surveys to understand children’s process of learning both about politics and gender roles, or what scholars call “<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/this-ones-for-the-boys-how-gendered-political-socialization-limits-girls-political-ambition-and-interest/FC49F85EDDAAA804DCBFBA63C6C437F0">gendered political socialization</a>.” </p>
<p>A third grade boy drew an image of Donald Trump. “He is saying a speech saying that we should lock up Hillry Clinton,” he wrote. We asked: What kinds of things do you think the leader does on a typical day? “Go on the news, go to cort.” What did he think of the leader: “A butthead.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/427220/original/file-20211019-27-15i2bo0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Donald Trump giving a speech and saying " src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/427220/original/file-20211019-27-15i2bo0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/427220/original/file-20211019-27-15i2bo0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/427220/original/file-20211019-27-15i2bo0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/427220/original/file-20211019-27-15i2bo0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/427220/original/file-20211019-27-15i2bo0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/427220/original/file-20211019-27-15i2bo0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/427220/original/file-20211019-27-15i2bo0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Donald Trump giving a speech.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bos, Angie et al</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A 7-year-old girl drew the mayor, who “is talking.” And what kinds of things does she think the leader does on a typical day? “Talk talk talk doesn’t do anything else.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/427224/original/file-20211019-21-17gr5uu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A crude stick figure of a person standing next to a flag." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/427224/original/file-20211019-21-17gr5uu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/427224/original/file-20211019-21-17gr5uu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/427224/original/file-20211019-21-17gr5uu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/427224/original/file-20211019-21-17gr5uu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/427224/original/file-20211019-21-17gr5uu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/427224/original/file-20211019-21-17gr5uu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/427224/original/file-20211019-21-17gr5uu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A mayor, drawn by a second grade girl. What does he do? ‘Talk talk talk.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bos, Angie et al</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A man’s world</h2>
<p>As elementary-aged children observe behavior and expectations for men and women in society, they come to understand that each gender typically occupies <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00289754">certain roles in society</a>, such as women working as <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797610377342?casa_token=rrsT9EmNeFAAAAAA%3AUovGzhbHPcKcr7ej4Y5dSpMciRPbEI4i0GGoiTuENEV8vVQl61Q9vZANQ6sT7hNUbCyRzIkRq-gu">teachers or men being firefighters</a>. </p>
<p>Kids also learn about politics during this time, with lessons that often focus on key events and leaders in U.S. history - and which focus almost exclusively on men. That these two processes – learning about gender and learning about politics – occur at the same time contributes to children’s understanding that the political world is dominated by men. </p>
<p><iframe id="9CE4m" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/9CE4m/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Our research shows that with age, girls increasingly see political leadership as a “man’s world.” One way that we show this is by looking at the drawings that children did of what they think political leaders look like. </p>
<p>Three-quarters of boys draw a man when they draw a political leader, across ages. Girls, in comparison, increasingly see political leaders as men over the course of elementary school. Less than half of the youngest girls in our study – first and second graders – draw women leaders. By middle school, only about a quarter of girls draw women.</p>
<p>We also demonstrate that children’s exposure to politics and the likelihood of drawing a known political leader, such as Trump or Barack Obama, increase with age. </p>
<p>Together with the trends in gender and age in drawing political leaders, our study indicates that as young children learn about politics and political figures, they internalize the idea that politics is a man’s world. </p>
<p>One result of the mismatch between women’s roles and politics: Girls express lower levels of interest and ambition in politics than do boys. </p>
<p>As girls enter adolescence, when peers <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pits.22309?casa_token=Lu_1qqj_RSoAAAAA:htGETj_bLdpg7mdkODZGxAKkLrrzPZeVCm-zF9DBBb-4PP3iQ7xd3P670lSiGjYgzozDSSm37hn4vpw">increase in influence</a> and fitting in becomes preferred over standing out, <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00402.x?casa_token=HMYdxcpr40YAAAAA%3A0_waxW_VB2vQZ84w1qRLWkg0yldst4R_Y0x-pBtajPOrXL9VHmIp1tOyQ48ltWyXGpnRCGY1UHo">they eschew politics</a>. As the continuing gaps in the numbers of women in office indicate, when girls turn away from politics, many do not turn back. </p>
<p>[<em>Over 115,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=100Ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p>
<p>What does this mean for politics? </p>
<p>The roots of gender inequality in politics reach far back to childhood. Those roots take hold as a result of many factors: how kids learn about both gender roles and politics through classroom activities, how their parents discuss political events, and how the media portrays politics. </p>
<p>Increasing the number of women who run for and hold elected positions depends on what parents, teachers and the media present as so-called “normal” for different genders.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168832/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors received funding for this research from the Pennsylvania Center for Women in Politics Elsie Hillman Prize </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela L. Bos, J Celeste Lay, Jill S. Greenlee, and Zoe M. Oxley do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As young children learn about politics and political figures, they internalize the idea that politics is a man’s world, which ultimately means political representation is heavily skewed toward men.Mirya Holman, Associate Professor, Tulane UniversityAngela L. Bos, Associate Professor of Political Science and Associate Dean for Experiential Learning, The College of WoosterJ Celeste Lay, Associate Professor of Political Science, Tulane UniversityJill S. Greenlee, Associate Professor of Politics and Women's, Gender & Sexuality Studies, Brandeis UniversityZoe M. Oxley, Professor of Political Science, Union CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1681942021-09-21T02:29:36Z2021-09-21T02:29:36ZPersonality traits may drive our ideas about fairness and sharing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422063/original/file-20210920-23-71epr8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=2%2C2%2C1595%2C1061&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Disputes over fairness can create conflict. Families squabble over inheritances, societies polarise around the question of how to distribute wealth fairly, and nations become mired in territorial quarrels. </p>
<p>Many of these disputes stem from different perspectives people have on fairness. In new research, we found people’s ideas about fairness may stem from their personality traits.</p>
<h2>No universal rule for sharing</h2>
<p>Many disputes over fairness stem from the fact there isn’t a single universal moral solution to sharing a resource. Instead, there are several commonly used and widely acceptable moral stances, or norms.</p>
<p>Consider dividing an inheritance among siblings. Under the “norm of equality”, the inheritance should be split equally among them, regardless of any other information.</p>
<p>By the “equity norm”, however, a sibling in dire economic need should receive a larger share. By the “indirect reciprocity norm”, a sibling who has done more to take care of their parents while they were ill deserves a greater portion of the inheritance.</p>
<p>Individuals may disagree in good faith about which of these norms should guide the division of the inheritance.</p>
<h2>More than selfishness</h2>
<p>Previous research has shown that, in situations where multiple norms can be applied, individuals gravitate toward norms that best <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2112">serve their economic interests</a>. </p>
<p>But is this the whole story? Do people just select norms to serve their momentary interest? Or might they also have stable preferences for particular norms, even when they have no personal stake? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-do-children-think-of-economic-inequality-we-did-an-experiment-to-find-out-163262">What do children think of economic inequality? We did an experiment to find out</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In our work at the Decision Neuroscience Lab at the University of Melbourne, we shed light on these issues in two new studies. In the first, we developed a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-74975-0">new way to measure the relative importance individuals give to different fairness norms</a>. In the second, we <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211038295">related these measures to personality traits</a>.</p>
<h2>The ten-dollar question</h2>
<p>To measure the importance individuals assign to different norms, we asked participants to make moral judgements of how people chose to share $10 in a simple game. Our participants rated different sharing behaviours on a scale from “morally good” to “morally bad”. </p>
<p>The participants showed prominent differences in how they judged different sharing behaviours. Most participants judged even-handed sharing (dividing the $10 equally) as more moral than more generous sharing (giving away more than they kept), but some did the opposite. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422067/original/file-20210920-25-140xtq0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422067/original/file-20210920-25-140xtq0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422067/original/file-20210920-25-140xtq0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422067/original/file-20210920-25-140xtq0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422067/original/file-20210920-25-140xtq0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422067/original/file-20210920-25-140xtq0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422067/original/file-20210920-25-140xtq0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When judging the morality of another person choice to split $10 dollars with a third party, people’s responses correlated with personality.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some participants were quite harsh in their judgements of low sharing (such as keeping $9 and giving only $1 to one’s partner), whereas others were more accepting of such behaviours. </p>
<p>To describe these differences, we mathematically derived a set of scores for each individual, where each score reflected the importance they place on a different fairness norm.</p>
<h2>Why should personality matter?</h2>
<p>Personality traits describe characteristics of individuals that are relatively stable over time, and also persist across situations. In our research, we looked at the set of personality traits described by the Big Five framework which include: extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and negative emotionality.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/psychology-by-numbers-a-brief-history-of-personality-tests-53927">Psychology by numbers: a brief history of personality tests</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In some situations, most individuals behave in a similar way regardless of their personality. Almost everyone is likely to agree it is morally wrong to murder an innocent person. </p>
<p>In other situations, there will be individual differences in behaviour that do not systematically relate to personality differences. Residents of an apartment building will reliably press different buttons in the lift, but each person’s choice is determined by where they live. </p>
<p>However, many situations produce individual differences in behaviour that reveal people’s personalities — such as how they respond differently to stress, good news, a major life change, and so on. So, why might judging the behaviour of others be one of these situations?</p>
<p>First, there are robust individual differences in the importance people assign to fairness norms in moral judgements. Second, previous research has demonstrated that agreeableness in particular <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000217">predicts adherence to fairness norms</a> in several sharing situations. </p>
<p>Agreeableness is thought to capture kindness, politeness and compassion when dealing with others. How agreeableness is connected to fairness-related moral judgements of other people has not been studied before. </p>
<p>One might expect a kind, polite and compassionate person to be more forgiving and tolerant when judging others. On the other hand, agreeableness predicts higher adherence to fairness norms, so perhaps a polite and compassionate person would be highly sensitive to perceived unfairness, and thus judge the perpetrator of the unfairness more harshly. We hypothesised the latter to be the case.</p>
<h2>How do personality traits relate to importance people assign to fairness norms?</h2>
<p>For our second study, we measured agreeableness alongside other personality traits (including extraversion, conscientiousness, negative emotionality, and openness) using a reliable and well-validated questionnaire. We then examined associations these personality traits had with moral judgements in our sharing game. </p>
<p>Our findings supported the idea that agreeable individuals would judge abuses of fairness norms more harshly – and provided no support for the idea that agreeable people would be forgiving and tolerant when judging others that abuse fairness norms. Agreeable people may still be more forgiving when they are affected by norm abuses themselves, but do not seem to be forgiving on other people’s behalf. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422069/original/file-20210920-28-rs5qw7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422069/original/file-20210920-28-rs5qw7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422069/original/file-20210920-28-rs5qw7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422069/original/file-20210920-28-rs5qw7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422069/original/file-20210920-28-rs5qw7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422069/original/file-20210920-28-rs5qw7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422069/original/file-20210920-28-rs5qw7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People who score highly for agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness and extraversion tended to judge the decisions of others more harshly.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We found people who scored highly on the traits of conscientiousness, openness and extraversion also made harsher judgements. These findings were somewhat surprising to us, so we recommend future studies to further investigate why this is the case. </p>
<p>Do conscientious people have a stricter understanding of fairness norms, or are they more diligent when rating the behaviour of others? Are extraverts more sensitive to abuse of some moral norms because they are more sensitive to social rewards and punishments than introverts? Do highly open people have a more confident understanding of moral situations? Further research is needed to get to the bottom of these questions.</p>
<h2>More tolerance for moral plurality</h2>
<p>What do these findings mean for conflicts around fairness that we encounter in our everyday lives? At least some of these conflicts likely occur because of differences in the importance individuals assign to different fairness norms. </p>
<p>Revealing these differences cannot settle disputes, but it may help us better understand moral plurality, and have a more tolerant approach to differences in perspective when negotiating fairness in our everyday lives.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-and-you-how-your-personality-affects-how-you-cope-and-what-you-can-do-about-it-134037">Coronavirus and you: how your personality affects how you cope and what you can do about it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168194/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The research described in this article was supported by an Australian Research Council grant (ARC DP160103353) to Stefan Bode.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Feuerriegel and Luke Smillie do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are many ways to decide what’s ‘fair’ in a given situation. Which one you prefer may depend on what kind of person you are.Milan Andrejević, PhD Candidate in Psychology, The University of MelbourneDaniel Feuerriegel, Research Fellow In Psychology, The University of MelbourneLuke Smillie, Associate Professor in Personality Psychology, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1555282021-03-17T12:14:27Z2021-03-17T12:14:27ZSelfish or selfless? Human nature means you’re both<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389862/original/file-20210316-22-nwmjbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=91%2C118%2C3362%2C2166&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Even young children are very aware of whether they're getting their fair share.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/24028496-royalty-free-image/87803233">Jupiterimages/PHOTOS.com via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Looking out for number one has been important for survival for as long as there have been human beings.</p>
<p>But self-interest isn’t the only trait that helped people win at evolution. Groups of individuals who were predisposed to cooperate, care for each other and uphold social norms of fairness tended to survive and expand relative to other groups, thereby allowing these <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2020.12.009">prosocial motivations to proliferate</a>.</p>
<p>So today, concern for oneself and concern for others both contribute to our sense of fairness. Together they facilitate cooperation among unrelated individuals, something ubiquitous among people but uncommon in nature.</p>
<p>A critical question is how people balance these two motivations when making decisions. </p>
<p>We investigate this question in our work at the <a href="https://voices.uchicago.edu/scnl/">Social Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory</a> at the University of Chicago, combining behavioral economics tasks with neuroimaging methods that let us watch what’s happening in the brains of adults and children. We’ve found evidence that people care about both themselves and others – but it’s the self that takes precedence.</p>
<h2>Learning to be equitable</h2>
<p>Children are sensitive to fairness from a very early age.</p>
<p>For instance, if you give two siblings different numbers of cookies, the one who receives fewer will likely throw a fit. Very young children, between 3 and 6 years of age, are highly sensitive to concerns about equality. Splitting resources is “fair” if everyone gets the same amount. By 6 years old, <a href="https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0025907">children will even throw resources away</a> rather than allocate them unequally.</p>
<p>As they grow, children develop abilities to <a href="https://theconversation.com/children-understand-far-more-about-other-minds-than-long-believed-72711">think about the minds of others</a> and care about social norms. Soon, they begin to understand the principle of “equity” – a “fair” distribution can be unequal if it takes into account people’s need, effort or merit. For instance, a sibling who does more chores may be entitled to more cookies. This shift toward equity appears to be universal in humans and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12729">follows similar patterns across cultures</a>.</p>
<p>Interestingly, it <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-kids-have-a-fundamental-sense-of-fairness/">takes several years of development</a> before children’s own behavior catches up with their understanding of fairness – for instance, by opting to share resources more equally rather than prioritizing their own payoffs.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Child wearing a EEG cap" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers fitted children with EEG caps to monitor their brains’ electrical activity as they watched an adult distribute treats.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jean Decety/University of Chicago</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To investigate how children’s developing brains guide their understanding of fairness, we invited kids ranging from age 4 to 8 into our lab. We gave them four candies to divide between two other people. After they decided how many (if any) to share, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000813">we measured their brain activity</a> using <a href="https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/brain-imaging-techniques/">noninvasive electroencephalography</a> while they watched an adult split 10 rewards – like candies, coins or stickers – between two other people. The distributions could be fair (5:5), slightly unfair (7:3) or very unfair (10:0).</p>
<p>At first, kids’ brain activity looked the same whether they were observing a slightly unfair or very unfair distribution of the treats. After 400 milliseconds, the brain electrical activity for kids who saw the slightly unfair 7:3 split changed to look like the brain response of kids who saw the completely fair 5:5 division.</p>
<p>Our interpretation is that the young brains used that short lag time to consider why an adult might have handed out the treats in a slightly unfair way and then resolved that it may actually have been fair.</p>
<p>Further, children whose brain activity patterns were the most different when viewing fair versus unfair distributions were the most likely to have used merit and need when they originally divided up their candies, before they watched the adults.</p>
<p>So the EEG recordings indicate that even 4-year-old children expect distributions to be perfectly equal, which makes sense given their natural preference for equality. When children, especially after age 5, watch an adult make a completely unfair distribution, they work to try to understand why this might be the case.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="woman with fruit spilling out of ripped grocery bags" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How do you prioritize assisting someone else if it would come at a cost to yourself, like missing your bus to help pick up spilled items?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/woman-dropping-groceries-on-sidewalk-royalty-free-image/90201027">Chris Ryan/OJO Images via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Me first, then you</h2>
<p>In your everyday adult life, you face decisions that affect not just yourself, but other people around you. Do you help a stranger pick up their spilled bag and miss your bus? Do you take the big piece of cake and leave the small one for the coworker who is coming later?</p>
<p>Put more generally, how do people balance self-interest against fairness for others when those motivations conflict?</p>
<p>To answer this question, we invited participants to play an economic game. In each round, an anonymous proposer would split US$12 among themselves, the participant and another player. The participant could decide to accept the distribution, allowing all three players to keep the money, or reject the distribution, meaning no one got anything. While participants made their decision, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107576">we measured their neural activity</a> using EEG and fMRI. <a href="https://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/health/health-sciences/how-fmri-works">Functional magnetic resonance imaging</a> reveals active areas of the brain by mapping blood flow.</p>
<p>The proposer was actually a computer that let us manipulate the fairness of the offers. We found that both fairness for self and fairness for the other were important for participants’ decisions, but people were more willing to tolerate offers which were unfair to others if they themselves received an unfair offer. </p>
<p>Our design also allowed us to ask whether the same regions of the brain are sensitive to self-interest and concern for other. A popular concept in cognitive science is that we are able to understand other people because we use the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.004">same parts of our brain to understand our self</a>. The idea is that the brain activates and manages these shared representations depending on the task at hand.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="brain with different areas highlighted for 'self' and 'others'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Regions of the brain that were sensitive to fairness for self (red) or other (blue) didn’t overlap in the study.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jean Decety/University of Chicago</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But in our studies, we found that rather than shared brain areas, distinct brain networks were involved in thinking about fairness for self and other.</p>
<p>We also used machine learning to test whether by looking at the brain signals we could predict what kind of offer a participant had received. We could reliably decode a signal in multiple brain networks that corresponded to fairness for self – that is, “did I get at least a third of the $12?” And this focus on self-interest dominated the early stages of decision-making.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="EEG depicts brain waves when thinking about self and other" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Accuracy of the machine-learning algorithm trained to use EEG data to classify distributions as fair or unfair for the self or other. Darker lines are times when the algorithm was better than chance (50%). It was better at identifying a reliable pattern of brain activity for self fairness.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jean Decety/University of Chicago</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Overall, these results suggest that people prioritize their own payoffs first and only later integrate how their options affect other people. So while people do care about others, self-interested behavior is alive and well, even in behavioral economics games. Once people get their fair share, then they are willing to be fair to others. You’re more likely to help the stranger with her bag if you know there will be another bus in 10 minutes, rather than an hour.</p>
<p>[<em>Get our best science, health and technology stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-best">Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p>
<h2>Investigating more complicated scenarios</h2>
<p>In daily life, people are rarely just responders, like in the game in our lab. We are interested in what happens when a person must make decisions that involve other people, such as delegating responsibilities among team members, or when an individual has limited power to personally affect the way resources are divided, as in government spending.</p>
<p>One implication from our work is that when people want to reach a compromise, it may be important to ensure that no one feels taken advantage of. Human nature seems to be to make sure you’ve taken care of yourself before you consider the needs of others.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155528/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cognitive neuroscientists use brain imaging and behavioral economic games to investigate people’s sense of fairness. They find it’s common to take care of yourself before looking out for others.Keith Yoder, Postdoctoral Scholar in Social Cognitive Neuroscience, University of ChicagoJean Decety, Professor of Psychology, and Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of ChicagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1523052020-12-21T20:00:53Z2020-12-21T20:00:53ZThe psychology of fairness: Why some Americans don’t believe the election results<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375936/original/file-20201218-15-eksk49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C25%2C5760%2C3785&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Polls show that some three-quarters of Republicans claim the election was rigged.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tens-of-thousands-of-trump-supporters-rally-and-march-to-news-photo/1285832244?adppopup=true">Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis News via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The electoral votes have confirmed <a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-270-electoral-college-vote-d429ef97af2bf574d16463384dc7cc1e">Joe Biden won the 2020 United States presidential election</a>. The presidential electors gave Biden 306 electoral votes to President Donald Trump’s 232 votes. Biden also recorded a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-popular-vote-record-barack-obama-us-presidential-election-donald-trump/">solid lead of over 7 million</a> in the popular vote.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375997/original/file-20201218-13-1t1xrw0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Voters deeply divided over accuracy of vote count" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375997/original/file-20201218-13-1t1xrw0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375997/original/file-20201218-13-1t1xrw0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1032&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375997/original/file-20201218-13-1t1xrw0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1032&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375997/original/file-20201218-13-1t1xrw0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1032&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375997/original/file-20201218-13-1t1xrw0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1297&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375997/original/file-20201218-13-1t1xrw0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1297&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375997/original/file-20201218-13-1t1xrw0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1297&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Voters deeply divided over election process and accuracy of vote count.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/11/20/sharp-divisions-on-vote-counts-as-biden-gets-high-marks-for-his-post-election-conduct/pp_2020-11-20_post-election_0-01/">Based on voter survey of U.S. adults conducted Nov. 12-17, 2020. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C.</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nonetheless, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/12/09/944685514/most-americans-believe-the-election-results-some-dont">results from a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey</a> found that approximately three-quarters of Republicans did not trust the election results. Corroborating this finding, a separate study of 24,000 Americans <a href="https://news.northeastern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/COVID19-CONSORTIUM-REPORT-29-ELECTION-DEC-2020.pdf">found that nearly two-thirds of Republicans lacked confidence</a> in the fairness of the election and over 80% feared fraud, inaccuracy, bias and illegality. In addition, <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-election-court-losses-electoral-college">nearly 60 lawsuits filed by Trump</a> claiming various forms of election fraud have been dismissed, including two evaluated by the U.S. Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Of course, doubting the fairness of a disappointing decision is not a Republican phenomenon – it’s a human one.</p>
<p>When a decision is made and people get the outcome they want, they often tend to see the outcome as fair. For example, when people apply for a promotion and get it, they are more than likely to believe they deserved it. But if they didn’t get the promotion, it is likely to drive a different reaction. At that point, the process used to make the decision becomes of utmost importance. Some might ask whether the <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2001-06715-002">process</a> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/11/20/sharp-divisions-on-vote-counts-as-biden-gets-high-marks-for-his-post-election-conduct/pp_2020-11-20_post-election_0-01/">was free of bias</a>, consistent and ethical. </p>
<p>To investigate this perplexing phenomenon, it’s important to understand the psychology of fairness. </p>
<h2>Fair procedures usually matter</h2>
<p><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-01404-002">Research</a> consistently finds that when people get an unfavorable outcome but believe the process used to make the decision was fair, they react more positively. </p>
<p>They may be disappointed, but they tend to accept the decision and stay loyal to the institution that made the decision. This is known as the “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1034">fair process effect</a>”: the tendency for fair procedures to mitigate negative reactions to an unfavorable decision.</p>
<p>However, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013108">research</a> my colleagues and I conducted in 2009 identifies an important caveat to this effect. We found that when an unfavorable decision is very important to someone – that it is central to their identity as part of a group or their personal values – they tend to look for flaws demonstrating that the process used to make the decision was unfair.</p>
<p>In the first study, we asked 180 university students about a decision that the administration would soon make about limiting the free speech of students. We manipulated whether the outcome was favorable such that half of the students were told the administration planned to restrict free speech and the other half were told there would be no restrictions. We also manipulated the process by telling students they had an opportunity to express their concerns in a public forum or did not have that opportunity. </p>
<p>We then assessed whether the decision made by the administration violated students’ identity as a member of the university and their personal values. </p>
<p>We found that when students felt the decision violated their social or personal identity, they perceived the process and outcome were unfair even when they had the opportunity to express their views at a public forum. In other words, there was a weak or no relationship between providing an opportunity for voice and fairness perceptions for people whose identity was violated. </p>
<p>In the second study we asked 277 adults with work experience about a time a decision was made at work when the outcome was favorable (or not) and the process was fair (or not).</p>
<p>As in the prior study, we found that an objectively fair process <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013108">did not improve fairness perceptions</a> when an outcome violated one’s identity. Instead, these participants were more likely to say that there was a procedural flaw – they doubted the opinions they provided to the decision-maker were ever considered. </p>
<p>The fact that they did not get the outcome they wanted on something that was central to their identity led participants to seek out reasons that an objectively fair process was somehow flawed in a meaningful way. They felt the need to discredit the process. </p>
<p>These findings are consistent with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.629">other research</a> showing that for those who have a strong moral stance on an issue,judgments about whether the process and outcome are fair are determined more by whether the outcome was favorable than whether the procedure was objectively fair. </p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.629">when participants supported</a> abortion rights, and a defendant in a trial was not convicted of bombing a clinic that performed abortions, these participants believed the trial process was less fair than those who held anti-abortion rights beliefs. </p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.629">when participants held anti-abortion rights beliefs</a> and a physician on trial for providing illegal late-term abortions was acquitted, participants believed the trial was less fair than did those with abortion-rights beliefs. When we care deeply about an issue and get an unfavorable outcome, we question the process used to make the decision. </p>
<h2>What can you do?</h2>
<p>In an environment in which partisan and identity politics rule, perhaps it is not surprising that a decision that hurts one’s in-group – in this case, Republican supporters – is dismissed on the basis of perceived procedural flaws that render the election unfair despite objective reality. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375976/original/file-20201218-21-m6wmem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Some believed Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings were unjust" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375976/original/file-20201218-21-m6wmem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375976/original/file-20201218-21-m6wmem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375976/original/file-20201218-21-m6wmem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375976/original/file-20201218-21-m6wmem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375976/original/file-20201218-21-m6wmem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375976/original/file-20201218-21-m6wmem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375976/original/file-20201218-21-m6wmem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">After Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice, there were those who claimed that the hearings were unjust.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-demonstrate-against-judge-brett-kavanaughs-news-photo/1134056889?adppopup=true">VW Pics/Universal Images Group via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Of course, the act of discounting the fairness of a decision process when a decision violates one’s identity is not limited to one political party. For example, after Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-kavanaugh-hearings-were-a-show-trial-gone-bad-102025">Democrats tended to believe</a> that his confirmation hearings were unjust, including the withholding of important evidence. </p>
<p>Given that anyone can fall victim to this bias, several things can be done. First, it is important for leaders to legitimize the decision process. For example, when an organization makes a policy change to extend or reduce the number of remote days of work per week, it is important for leadership at all levels to clarify there was reasonable and fair process used to make the decision. </p>
<p>Second, it is critical to ask someone who is impartial. When wrestling with an ethical conundrum, people often come to a conclusion that is aligned with their self-interest – what psychologists call “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00410-6">motivated moral reasoning</a>.” Thus, a neutral person can more accurately assess the decision. </p>
<p>Third, reducing how much a person feels distinct and isolated from members of another group by not <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045">dehumanizing</a> members of the other group can lessen beliefs that a decision process was rigged or biased. </p>
<p>People often do not get the outcome they want on issues central to their identity, so it is important to actively guard against questioning the legitimacy of an objective and fair process.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/152305/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David M. Mayer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When a decision is made and people don’t get the outcome they want, they often tend to see it as unfair. Here’s why.David M. Mayer, Professor of Management & Organizations, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1459902020-09-30T12:28:38Z2020-09-30T12:28:38ZThe urge to punish is not only about revenge – unfairness can unleash it, too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359837/original/file-20200924-18-oeo7km.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=43%2C732%2C5371%2C3095&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Everyone wants a slice of the pie.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/four-friends-eating-pizza-outdoors-partial-view-royalty-free-image/707450897">Westend61 via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine you and your friend are at a party and someone orders pizza. You’re starving. You put a couple of slices on your plate and sit down at the table. Before you start eating, you excuse yourself to wash your hands.</p>
<p>On your way back from the bathroom, you look across the room just in time to see your friend grab one of the slices off your plate and start to eat it. This would probably make you mad, right? You might even feel an urge to get back at them somehow. </p>
<p>Now imagine a slightly different scenario. You and your friend are at the same party but before you have the chance to get pizza, you excuse yourself to wash your hands. While you’re gone, the pizza is served and your friend grabs a couple slices for themself but only one for you.</p>
<p>This would also probably make you kind of mad, right? But why? This time your friend didn’t actually steal your pizza, so why does it feel like they did something wrong?</p>
<p>The answer is that unfairness alone is upsetting – upsetting enough to drive people to punish those who have benefited from unfair outcomes. </p>
<p>Along with our colleague <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=u6_SEO4AAAAJ&hl=en">Nichola Raihani</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XNWktKIAAAAJ&hl=en">we</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nVi8unEAAAAJ&hl=en">recently</a> completed a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.06.001">psychology experiment</a> that supports this concept. The idea that unfairness alone can motivate punishment runs counter to a lot of existing research that suggests <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002160">punishment</a> is driven primarily by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171298">revenge</a>. </p>
<p>Why does this matter? Because understanding what motivates punishment can help shed light on the functions it serves in human societies – and possibly even why punishment evolved in the first place. </p>
<h2>Deterrence and leveling</h2>
<p>Revenge-based punishment may serve an important deterrence function – encouraging those who have harmed you to behave better in the future. </p>
<p>Inequity-based punishment, on the other hand, may serve an important leveling function – making sure you’re not worse off than those around you, potentially giving you a competitive edge – or at least preventing others from gaining too much of a step up.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A statue of Lady Justice with a sword in one hand and scales in the other." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Humans have been concerned with justice for ages.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/statue-of-lady-justice-royalty-free-image/155419475">georgeclerk/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In our study, we wanted to understand what drives people to punish others. Is it revenge, inequity or both? </p>
<p>We paired up thousands of participants who had never met in an online economic game in which they made decisions about real money. In one condition, just as in the first pizza example, one player stole money from another player. In some cases, depending on the amount of money the victim started with, stealing meant the thief ended up with more money than the victim.</p>
<p>We expected this theft would motivate victims to punish and we were right: People do not like being stolen from and would pay to punish thieves, reducing their income in the game. This evidence supports the idea that punishment is motivated by revenge.</p>
<p>However, this scenario didn’t tell us whether people also punish in response to unfairness. To test this possibility, we designed a similar situation – one that resulted in one player ending up with more than the other – but, in this case, no theft occurred. Rather, like the second pizza example, one player had a chance to gift money to the other player, at no cost to themself, or the money disappeared.</p>
<p>In these cases, a player who refused to give money to the other would sometimes end up with more money – the unfair outcome we were curious about. Interestingly, we found people were more likely to punish when they had less money than the other player – even when no theft had occurred. </p>
<p>This showed us that unfairness alone, even in the absence of a direct transgression like theft, is enough to motivate punishment. </p>
<h2>A multipurpose behavior</h2>
<p>Our new findings are exciting because they suggest that people have different motivations to punish others. Sure, people are motivated to seek revenge on those who have stolen from them, but they are also willing to punish in cases where they simply have less than others. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>This finding suggests punishment likely evolved for different uses – deterrence as well as leveling the playing field – showcasing how one behavior can serve different functions. That punishment can serve such different functions implies that both deterrence and resource leveling might have increased the genetic fitness of our ancestors. In other words, as humans evolved, people who punished to deter others or level the playing field passed on more of their genes than those who punished less.</p>
<p>So next time you’re deciding whether to take more than your fair share of pizza, maybe think twice. Otherwise you might unwittingly become the target of a hungry punisher looking for justice.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145990/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>During the study period, I received funding from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR). It was an Azrieli Global Scholars award. Our lab had other external funding during this time, but it was not relevant to this project.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Deutchman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Unfairness alone is upsetting enough to drive people to punish lucky recipients of unfair outcomes.Paul Deutchman, PhD Candidate in Psychology, Boston CollegeKatherine McAuliffe, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Boston CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1409542020-06-26T09:30:45Z2020-06-26T09:30:45ZWhy fairness matters more than equality – three ways to think philosophically about justice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343535/original/file-20200623-188900-1f1jub7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C2%2C997%2C663&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Unrest in Chile in October 2019 over inequality of income, but some argue it was as much to do with fair opportunity.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/santiago-de-chile-19102019-people-preparing-1536609440">abriendomundo/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a sermon in 1956, Martin Luther King distinguished negative peace (as the absence of tension) from positive peace (as the presence of justice). It is certainly plausible that a lasting peace would be of the positive kind. But when we reflect on what “justice” might mean, particularly economic justice (the justice of wealth and income), we notice an interesting dissonance between theory and practice. </p>
<p>In theory, the most influential concepts of justice are egalitarian, ones in which the concept of equality plays a central role. In practice, however, research shows that people are not so much concerned about equality, but about fairness. And while we often articulate fairness in terms of “just deserts”, the concept of this metaphorical desert has been consigned by most theorists <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300240334_The_Concept_of_Desert">to the philosophical scrap heap</a> for being difficult to measure exactly.</p>
<p>Recent research gives us some hope: there is a way to understand fairness, which may put us on a safer path towards positive peace.</p>
<h2>Inequality is fine for the lucky</h2>
<p>Let’s say you divide a cake for your birthday. Dividing it equally might be the fair distribution in this case, but often we end up with unequal, yet fair distributions (of cake or other goods). </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343530/original/file-20200623-188931-snk80u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343530/original/file-20200623-188931-snk80u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343530/original/file-20200623-188931-snk80u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343530/original/file-20200623-188931-snk80u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343530/original/file-20200623-188931-snk80u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343530/original/file-20200623-188931-snk80u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343530/original/file-20200623-188931-snk80u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Piece of cake? Anything but.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/dark-chocolate-tort-perfectly-sliced-sharing-465392408">Marcin Jucha/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Perhaps the most influential contemporary theory of justice was by John Rawls. His <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#TwoPriJusFai">Egalitarian Principle</a> on regulating the distribution of wealth and income requires that we divide all goods in society equally, unless unequal distributions are to the benefit of the worst off. </p>
<p>We may disagree with this principle because we usually profit from many contingent factors. For instance, we may have been born with rare talents, within an affluent family, group or country.</p>
<p>As members of the worst-off group, however, we would find Rawls’s principle justified, as we would if we did not know where, when, and how we would be born. This shows why, in theory, egalitarianism is so attractive and influential.</p>
<h2>We do not value equality for its own sake</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/0b362d6a-df2a-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc">A standard approach</a> to social, political and economic problems is to identify stark inequalities between individuals, groups and countries as the root cause. The solution is usually redistribution towards more egalitarian outcomes. Yet, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/people-dont-actually-want-equality/411784/">recent research</a> in philosophy, psychology and elsewhere questions the wisdom of such solutions. </p>
<p>First, is equality valued for its own sake? Consider a society in which everybody gets the same, but not enough. This will not be valued more than a society with huge disparities, where there is sufficient for all. Moreover, we usually <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170706-theres-a-problem-with-the-way-we-define-inequality">react to being unfairly disadvantaged</a>, rather than simply to not getting the same. Hence, restricting distribution to equal shares or conditioning unequal shares on being to the worst-off’s benefit, irrespective of how hard we each work, does not seem just.</p>
<p>Interestingly, <a href="https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications/fellow-graduate-student-working-papers/social-mobility-populism">more recent research</a> draws a link between populist voting patterns in elections (in the US in 2016, and in France and the EU in 2019) and economic unfairness measured in terms of low social mobility. People are taking to the streets, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/7a448a34-f588-11e9-b018-3ef8794b17c6">as two economists wrote</a>, not because they have less than others, but rather because they want fair opportunity. If distributive justice is a combination of equal opportunities and fair reward for talent and effort, then outcomes are likely to be unequal.</p>
<p>This isn’t a new conception of fair economic distribution, although it seems to have enjoyed more <a href="https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/justice-and-the-meritocratic-state/">positive reconsideration</a> recently. What this conception advocates instead is meritocracy. </p>
<p>Meritocracy was coined in 1958 by Michael Young, a member of the UK Labour Party and director of the party’s research office. In a meritocratic society social status is determined by “merit”, acquired through a combination of intelligence and effort leading to various significant social contributions. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343540/original/file-20200623-188916-13lkqei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343540/original/file-20200623-188916-13lkqei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343540/original/file-20200623-188916-13lkqei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343540/original/file-20200623-188916-13lkqei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343540/original/file-20200623-188916-13lkqei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343540/original/file-20200623-188916-13lkqei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343540/original/file-20200623-188916-13lkqei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Meritocracy – fair opportunity but unfair disadvantage.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/job-initiative-promotion-proactive-staff-concept-687448615">Kentoh/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet, Young was <a href="https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/02/10/the-merits-of-revisiting-michael-young">critical of meritocracy</a>, viewing it as a political system with low social mobility. What made it worse, he thought, was that it also gave the impression of fairness.</p>
<h2>The fairness of distribution using just deserts</h2>
<p>If what we want are fair opportunities without unfair disadvantage, then meritocracy cannot be the answer. <a href="https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-meritocracy-more-than-being-a-member-of-the-lucky-sperm-club">Intelligence is at least to a significant extent hereditary</a>. The ability to work hard is partly hereditary and the result of specific parental and social expectations. </p>
<p>Hence, the same groups of people will always end up at the top of the social ladder. This can hardly be just. Those at the bottom seem to be unfairly disadvantaged. It is interesting to see that the question often raised about the justice of various aspects of society is formulated in terms of what is “deserved”. </p>
<p>For example, we can criticise meritocracy and try to identify instead <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/19/the-myth-of-meritocracy-who-really-gets-what-they-deserve">who really gets what they deserve</a>. We could think a particular arrangement is fair (frontline NHS staff getting a bonus, for example), since <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-nhs-workers-bonus-staff-pay-health-care-lib-dems-a9472286.html">it is deserved</a>. </p>
<p>This need not refer only to fair distribution. An unfair decision in the courts is often challenged with the assertion that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/12/windrush-generation-justioce">the victims have not had their just deserts</a>.</p>
<p>We continue to use “desert” as a meaningful and powerful concept despite one of the most important British political scientists of the 20th century, Brian Barry, predicting in the 60s that <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee720">the concept would disappear</a>. When, in 1971, Rawls formulated his famous anti-desert egalitarian theory, it seemed to confirm Barry’s prediction.</p>
<p>The problem with a theory of distribution centred on the notion of desert is knowing exactly who deserves what – what is the result of responsible actions, attributable to us rather than to natural endowments and social circumstances. It may seem impossible to separate our just deserts from our unfair advantages or disadvantages.</p>
<p>But there is one way in which it might make more sense. This was suggested by John Roemer’s <a href="https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d19/d1921.pdf">work on fair opportunities</a> and <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/utilitas/article/epistemological-argument-against-desert/120FEBF7FBB0B9C40612C3FD20B3982C">applied</a> to the question of how to ascertain desert. </p>
<p>Say, for one kind of achievement, the most relevant factors affecting performance are quality of education and IQ. We can then group together those who are affected by the same factors. For instance, one group will be of those with a better education, but lower IQ.</p>
<p>We can then determine relative desert by evaluating performance within each of the four groups. Comparisons across groups will tell us who are the most deserving. A person in the group of the better educated with high IQ may perform better than a person in some other group. But if the latter ranks in a higher percentile than the former’s, then we conclude she is more deserving.</p>
<h2>Some goods should be distributed this way</h2>
<p>To ascertain just deserts in this way, we need to rely on good empirical theories that identify the most relevant factors affecting performance. Depending on how advanced such theories are, we may end up with inaccurate conclusions. </p>
<p>There are goods which may fundamentally affect a person’s life (for instance, healthcare resources). We will want to avoid getting their distribution wrong. So we will allocate them on the basis of need. </p>
<p>Even if we could ascertain a person’s deserts accurately, there are still instances where this type of distribution seems undesirable. Consider hiring processes. We should aim to appoint the best neurosurgeon, even if they cannot take credit completely for their talent and effort. </p>
<p>Healthcare services and good education are essential for equal opportunity. They should be among the goods provided universally. Yet, ignoring desert for all goods disconnects completely distributive shares from what we do responsibly. We should then distribute at least some significant goods (say, bonuses) entirely on the basis of just deserts. This would be one good mechanism for increasing social mobility. </p>
<p>Fairness matters: systematic unfair discrimination increases conflict and tension in societies and international community. Fairness is importantly linked to responsibility and accountability. So a theory of distributive justice sensitive to desert is the way forward.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140954/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sorin Baiasu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We all think we want equality, but in reality it’s often fairness that is more important to us.Sorin Baiasu, Professor of Philosophy, Keele UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1389352020-05-21T20:01:24Z2020-05-21T20:01:24ZRich and poor don’t recover equally from epidemics. Rebuilding fairly will be a global challenge<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336622/original/file-20200521-102667-szoqx9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C18%2C4114%2C2724&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, disaster recovery plans are almost always framed with <a href="https://www.preventionweb.net/files/2054_VL108301.pdf">aspirational plans</a> to “build back better”. It’s a fine sentiment – we all want to build better societies and economies. But, as the Cheshire Cat tells Alice when she is lost, where we ought to go depends very much on where we want to get to. </p>
<p>The ambition to build back better therefore needs to be made explicit and transparent as countries slowly re-emerge from their COVID-19 cocoons. </p>
<p>The Asian Development Bank attempted last year to <a href="https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/544956/ewp-600-build-back-better.pdf">define</a> build-back-better aspirations more precisely and concretely. The bank described four criteria: build back safer, build back faster, build back potential and build back fairer. </p>
<p>The first three are obvious. We clearly want our economies to recover fast, be safer and be more sustainable into the future. It’s the last objective – fairness – that will inevitably be the most challenging long-term goal at both the national and international level.</p>
<p>Economic fallout from the pandemic is already being experienced disproportionately among poorer households, in poorer regions within countries, and in poorer countries in general. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/recession-hits-maori-and-pasifika-harder-they-must-be-part-of-planning-new-zealands-covid-19-recovery-137763">Recession hits Māori and Pasifika harder. They must be part of planning New Zealand's COVID-19 recovery</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some governments are aware of this and are trying to ameliorate this brewing inequality. At the same time, it is seen as politically unpalatable to engage in redistribution during a global crisis. Most governments are opting for broad-brush policies aimed at everyone, lest they appear to be encouraging class warfare and division or, in the case of New Zealand, <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/19/1177653/budget-2020-emperor-robertsons-new-clothes">electioneering</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336615/original/file-20200521-102657-1au1k8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336615/original/file-20200521-102657-1au1k8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336615/original/file-20200521-102657-1au1k8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336615/original/file-20200521-102657-1au1k8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336615/original/file-20200521-102657-1au1k8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336615/original/file-20200521-102657-1au1k8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336615/original/file-20200521-102657-1au1k8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Banda Aceh, Indonesia, after the 2004 tsunami: the impact of disaster is not felt equally by all.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In fact, politicians’ typical focus on the next election aligns well with the public appetite for a fast recovery. We know that speedier recoveries are more complete, as delays dampen investment and people move away from economically depressed places.</p>
<p>Speed is also linked to safety. As we know from other disasters, this recovery cannot be completed as long as the COVID-19 public health challenge is not resolved. </p>
<p>The failure to invest in safety, in prevention and mitigation, is now most apparent in the United States, which has less than 5% of the global population but a third of COVID-19 confirmed cases. Despite the pressure to “open up” the economy, recovery won’t progress without a lasting solution to the widespread presence of the virus.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-pandemic-budget-is-all-about-saving-and-creating-jobs-now-the-hard-work-begins-138523">New Zealand's pandemic budget is all about saving and creating jobs. Now the hard work begins</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Economic potential also aligns with political aims and is therefore easier to imagine. A build-back-better recovery has to promise sustainable prosperity for all. </p>
<p>The emphasis on job generation in New Zealand’s recent budget was entirely the right primary focus. Employment is of paramount importance to voters, so it has been a logical focus in public stimulus packages everywhere.</p>
<p>Fairness, however, is more difficult to define and more challenging to achieve. </p>
<p>While a rising economic tide doesn’t always lift all boats – as the proponents of growth-at-any-cost sometimes argue – a low tide lifts none. Achieving fairness first depends on achieving the other three goals. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336616/original/file-20200521-102642-srn6n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336616/original/file-20200521-102642-srn6n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336616/original/file-20200521-102642-srn6n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336616/original/file-20200521-102642-srn6n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336616/original/file-20200521-102642-srn6n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336616/original/file-20200521-102642-srn6n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336616/original/file-20200521-102642-srn6n3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Under-prepared and under-resourced: the hospital ship Comfort arrives in New York during the COVID-19 crisis.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Economic prosperity is a necessary precondition for sustainable poverty reduction, but this virus is apparently selective in its deadliness. Already vulnerable segments of our societies – the elderly, the immuno-compromised and, according to some recent evidence, <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764789">ethnic minorities</a> – are more at risk. They are also more likely to already be economically disadvantaged.</p>
<p>As a general rule, epidemics <a href="https://voxeu.org/article/covid-19-will-raise-inequality-if-past-pandemics-are-guide">lead to more income inequality</a>, as households with lower incomes endure the economic pain more acutely. </p>
<p>This pattern of increased vulnerability to shocks in poorer households is not unique to epidemics, but we expect it to be the case even more this time. In the COVID-19 pandemic, economic devastation has been caused by the lockdown measures imposed and adopted voluntarily, not by the disease itself. </p>
<p>These measures have been <a href="https://cepr.org/sites/default/files/news/CovidEconomics19.pdf#Paper3">more harmful</a> for those on lower wages, those with part-time or temporary jobs, and those who <a href="https://voxeu.org/article/working-home-estimating-worldwide-potential">cannot easily work from home</a>. </p>
<p>Many low-wage workers also work in industries that will be experiencing longer-term declines associated with the structural changes generated by the pandemic: the collapse of international tourism, for example, or automation and robotics being used to shorten long and complicated supply chains. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/defunding-the-who-was-a-calculated-decision-not-an-impromptu-tweet-136620">Defunding the WHO was a calculated decision, not an impromptu tweet</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Poorer countries are in the worst position. The lockdowns <a href="https://cepr.org/sites/default/files/news/CovidEconomics19.pdf#Paper7">hit their economies harder</a>, but they do not have the resources for adequate public health measures, nor for assisting those most adversely affected. </p>
<p>In these places, even if the virus itself has not yet hit them much, the downturn will be experienced <a href="https://voxeu.org/article/economic-risk-covid-19-not-where-covid-19">more deeply and for longer</a>. </p>
<p>Worryingly, the international aid system that most poorer countries partially rely on to deal with disasters is not fit for dealing with pandemics. When all countries are adversely hit at the same time their focus inevitably becomes domestic. </p>
<p>Very few wealthy countries have announced any increases in international aid. If and when they have, the amounts were trivial – <a href="https://devpolicy.org/pivoting-new-zealands-aid-programme-to-respond-to-covid-19-20200508-3/">regrettably, this includes New Zealand</a>. And the one international institution that should have led the charge, the World Health Organisation, is being <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52289056">defunded</a> and attacked by its largest donor, the US.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1250194670031974400"}"></div></p>
<p>Unlike after the 2004 tsunami, international rescue will be very slow to arrive. One would hope most wealthy countries will be able to help their most vulnerable members. But it looks increasingly unlikely this will happen on an international scale between countries.</p>
<p>Without global empathy and better global leadership, the poorest countries and poorest people will only be made poorer by this invisible enemy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/138935/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ilan Noy receives funding from several New Zealand government grants, including from the Health Research Council, the Ministry for Business, Innovation, and Employment, and the Earthquake Commission.</span></em></p>Without genuine global leadership the ability of economies to “build back better” after the disaster caused by COVID-19 will unfairly favour wealthier populations and nations.Ilan Noy, Professor and Chair in the Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1380882020-05-07T17:00:16Z2020-05-07T17:00:16ZDid Neil Ferguson really do wrong in breaking the coronavirus lockdown?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333408/original/file-20200507-49558-13jy7pe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:180515_ferguson_neil_sph_020.jpg">Thomas Angus, Imperial College London/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If anyone is an expert on when it might be OK to breach lockdown regulations, it’s one of the country’s leading epidemiologists. But after <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/05/uk-coronavirus-adviser-prof-neil-ferguson-resigns-after-breaking-lockdown-rules">breaking the rules</a>, Neil Ferguson felt the need to step down from his position as a government adviser.</p>
<p>Twice during lockdown, Ferguson allowed a woman he is said to be in a relationship with to visit him. This was despite the UK government, who he was advising on COVID-19, forbidding people from visiting friends and family they don’t live with.</p>
<p>Does his expertise mean we should judge his indiscretions lightly? No. The lockdown strategy requires us all to act as if we are stupid, as if we cannot make judgements about what is safe or unsafe on the basis of the evidence. That applies as much to Ferguson as to you or me.</p>
<p>Ferguson was hypocritical. But hypocrisy is rather a boring vice – all it means is that there was a gap between his words and his actions. So, which were wrong: his words about the importance of lockdown, or his actions of breaking those measures? </p>
<h2>The unfairness of free riding</h2>
<p>It might seem obvious that the problem was his actions. By now, we all know why we should stay at home: to protect the NHS and save lives. But if everyone is staying home except one or two of us, the NHS will probably be protected whatever we do. What’s wrong with a few small violations?</p>
<p>Philosophers, economists and social scientists have thought about <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/">similar problems</a>. Here’s one standard example. Imagine you see everyone else buy a ticket as they board the bus. Enough tickets have been bought that the bus will run, even if you don’t buy one. So, you sneak on. Everyone else still gets to their destination, but something about your actions seems worrying. </p>
<p>Most analyses of these free-riding cases centre around ideas of fairness. In free riding, we receive a benefit from some socially coordinated activity but refuse to contribute ourselves. These refusals have an odd character. The activity can carry on generating benefits even if some people don’t cooperate, but not if everyone stopped cooperating. The bus will run even if you don’t buy a ticket, but not if no one did. If we free ride, we rely on everyone else to do their share while not doing our own. That’s <a href="https://politics.virginia.edu/georgeklosko/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2016/03/presumptive-benefit.pdf">unfair</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333416/original/file-20200507-49573-tkos56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333416/original/file-20200507-49573-tkos56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333416/original/file-20200507-49573-tkos56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333416/original/file-20200507-49573-tkos56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333416/original/file-20200507-49573-tkos56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333416/original/file-20200507-49573-tkos56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333416/original/file-20200507-49573-tkos56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Just because you can sneak on, doesn’t mean you should.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People_Getting_on_MBTA_Bus_57.jpg">Miles, the MBTA Guy/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Notions of free riding are central to many real-world debates. They are certainly relevant to the question of vaccination: if I know that everyone else has received a vaccine to protect against a disease, then why bother getting vaccinated myself? <a href="https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/what-herd-immunity">Herd immunity</a> will protect me and everyone else. </p>
<p>The short answer is that while you don’t need to be vaccinated to be protected, you do have an ethical obligation to maintain this <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267229/">public good</a>. </p>
<p>This notion also helps us understand small violations of lockdown rules. Given that everyone else is in lockdown, two people meeting up is extremely unlikely to cause harm. However, the meet-up is safe only because everyone else is in lockdown. If everyone did it, meeting up wouldn’t be safe. The problem isn’t that meeting up is risky, but that it’s unfair. </p>
<h2>Why it’s time to act stupid</h2>
<p>But there’s a twist. Free riding involves a “What if everyone did it?” question, and a lot depends on the “it”. </p>
<p>We know that Ferguson himself <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-52553229">has already had COVID-19</a>, and so was <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-long-are-you-infectious-when-you-have-coronavirus-135295">unlikely to be infectious</a>. Perhaps lots of people in Ferguson’s position could have meet-ups while continuing to protect the NHS and save lives. What would be wrong with adopting a more nuanced attitude towards lockdown measures – allowing people to judge for themselves how risky their behaviour is?</p>
<p>Here’s an obvious answer: people are often bad at <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-our-brains-do-not-intuitively-grasp-probabilities/">estimating risks</a>. </p>
<p>These problems are even worse in our current situation. It is hard to judge whether you have had <a href="https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu">COVID-19 or seasonal flu</a>, and judgements about safety depend on <a href="https://kingsphilosophy.com/2020/04/06/a-laypersons-guide-to-epidemiological-modelling-prof-alexander-bird/">complex medical and mathematical considerations</a>. Most of us are unqualified to decide that we are safe to stand closer than two metres apart.</p>
<p>Still, not everyone is equally bad at such calculations. For example, maybe prominent epidemiological modellers such as Ferguson are well situated to judge when it’s OK to break the rules. Why not give some people a pass? </p>
<p>The answer to this question takes us back to fairness. Normally, we enjoy what philosophers call <a href="http://www.investigacoesfilosoficas.com/wp-content/uploads/04-Zagzebski-2013-Intellectual-Autonomy.pdf">“intellectual autonomy”</a>; we are free to exercise our own judgement in forming our beliefs. One of the costs of lockdown is giving up some of this autonomy. We have to follow the rules, even if we feel certain they don’t apply to us. </p>
<p>Consider someone who, against this backdrop, makes their own judgements about what behaviours are risky. They are exercising their own intellectual autonomy on the basis that other people aren’t doing the same. That’s unfair in much the same way as taking the bus without buying a ticket. And just as not buying a ticket is unfair even when the bus will run anyway, this exercise of your intellectual autonomy can be unfair even when you’re likely to be <a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/JOHETA-2">right</a>.</p>
<p>Beyond the tawdry tabloid headlines and cries of hypocrisy, Ferguson’s indiscretions reveal a deeper, stranger truth. Sometimes, fairness can demand that we act stupid, even when we’re not.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/138088/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen John does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Lockdown requires that we all act as if we know nothing, even if we are world experts on disease transmission.Stephen John, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Public Health, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1359832020-04-21T17:54:05Z2020-04-21T17:54:05ZPoliticians appeal to our sense of fairness in the battle against COVID-19<p>Many of us have become accustomed to a new daily ritual: every day, millions of Canadians tune into news conferences in which political leaders and public health officials speak about the spread of COVID-19 and measures to slow it.</p>
<p>B.C. Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry and Health Minister Adrian Dix <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-memo-to-the-rest-of-canada-how-dr-bonnie-henry-and-bc-are-getting/">have won plaudits</a> for their transparency. “This is a time where we really need to stand together to support each other,” urged Henry after presenting an <a href="https://youtu.be/5FWqAcUs35I">update on COVID-19</a>. Dix added, “what we see is people around British Columbia who are taking part, who are participating, who are all in, who are helping to bend the curve.”</p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=155156055662015">Prime Minister Justin Trudeau</a>, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam and <a href="https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2019/11/30/doug-ford-its-a-unique-opportunity-to-bring-this-country-together.html">Ontario Premier Doug Ford</a> have been projecting the same message: we are in this together and everyone must be committed. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1242580021585293318"}"></div></p>
<p>News conferences are an essential ingredient of a successful COVID-19 response: they provide authoritative information based on science and evidence. As leaders of our health-care systems, health officials can tell us how they are mobilizing their staff, including doctors, nurses and other first responders, re-allocating resources and securing supplies needed to handle the tsunami of illness. </p>
<p>They can <a href="https://nationalpost.com/news/what-is-the-end-game-ontarios-stark-modelling-forecast-could-help-canadians-cope-with-covid-19">communicate modelling data with us</a> and provide the tools to understand them. And they can tell us what we need to do to play our part.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/predicting-possible-outcomes-to-coronavirus-and-other-pandemics-with-models-and-simulations-135788">Predicting possible outcomes to coronavirus and other pandemics with models and simulations</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Politicians’ role</h2>
<p>But politicians are also playing a crucial role in this fight. The co-operation of the public is essential, so it falls to our elected representatives to mobilize a collective effort on a scale that few of us have seen in our lifetimes. To win, political leaders must tap into a vital resource: our willingness to <a href="https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Aristotle_and_The_Good_Ruler">sacrifice for the greater good</a>.</p>
<p>Humans, at our best, are highly co-operative creatures. Our capacity to co-operate is motivated by empathy, care and bonds of attachment. Research in <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300163803/moral-economy">economics and psychology</a> tells us that fairness fosters co-operation. Primatologist Frans de Waal has found that <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/like-humans-chimps-reward-cooperation-and-punish-freeloaders/">chimpanzees reward co-operative</a> behaviour in other chimps. According to psychologist J. Kiley Hamlin, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963721412470687">pre-verbal human babies are also amenable to co-operation</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/anCaGBsBOxM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An observation experiment with babies shows how moral cognition develops at a very young age.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Politicians like Dix <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/pm-trudeau-questioned-on-covid-19-projections-implores-people-to-stay-home-1.4879062">and Trudeau</a> appeal to our sense of fairness when they ask us to <a href="https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/stay-home-for-us-healthcare-workers-share-message-with-maritimers-from-the-frontlines-1.4868144">stay at home</a> out of concern for front-line workers.</p>
<h2>Fairness and front-line workers</h2>
<p>Fairness requires that front-line workers, who bear <a href="https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-health-officer/covid-19/duty_to_care_during_covid_march_28_2020.pdf">the responsibility to provide care</a>, are prioritized to receive personal protective equipment since they are most exposed. Fairness also plays a role in the tough choices medical professionals make when they consider <a href="http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb2005114">how to allocate scarce resources</a>: <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/6741550/coronavirus-canada-death-ethics/">who gets a bed, a ventilator, a vaccine</a>. </p>
<p>These decisions are guided by the <a href="https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-health-officer/covid-19/duty_to_care_during_covid_march_28_2020.pdf">values of life and equality, and the priority of those in our society who are most vulnerable</a>. Indeed, in a pandemic, health care necessarily shifts from patient-centred to public-centred care.</p>
<h2>Economic policy</h2>
<p>Fairness must be a cornerstone of the economic policy response to COVID-19. The willingness to make sacrifices for the public good is being tested as physical distancing takes a toll on the economy, jobs and the ability of people to meet basic needs. That is why Ford was right to <a href="https://theprovince.com/news/canada/doug-ford-declares-war-on-price-gougers-taking-advantage-of-covid-19-outbreak/wcm/67cc9a48-6ec1-41cc-892f-5f59a4b671a6">declare zero tolerance on price gougers</a> and for Trudeau to warn businesses not to game the <a href="https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/trudeaus-daily-coronavirus-update-march-30-transcript/">Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy</a>.</p>
<p>But here is the kicker: there is nothing fair about COVID-19. </p>
<p>It will take a far <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-will-supercharge-american-inequality/608419/">greater toll</a> on the poor. COVID-19 disproportionately affects <a href="https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.8.1.17622">the elderly and those with underlying health issues</a>. It is ravaging communities that cannot afford physical distancing and lack access to medicines and potable water; it is attacking those with underlying conditions associated with poverty, like diabetes and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/oby.22813">obesity</a>; it is disproportionately affecting <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/08/its-a-racial-justice-issue-black-americans-are-dying-in-greater-numbers-from-covid-19">racialized minorities</a> and <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/indigenous-services-canada/news/2020/03/addressing-urgent-needs-in-indigenous-communities-related-to-covid-19.html">Indigenous communities</a>. </p>
<p>It will be devastating in low-income countries where <a href="https://www.cippec.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Blofield-Filgueira-2020-1.pdf">welfare protections are limited and many people work in the informal sector</a>.</p>
<h2>A new egalitarianism</h2>
<p>And it is not just that COVID-19 is unfair in its effects or that the disease exposes existing inequalities and injustices. It is precisely these inequalities and injustices that have amplified the pandemic’s deadly impact. Yesterday’s problems — the fraying of welfare systems, the chronic under-funding of health care and the over-reliance on low-income labour in <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-how-the-coronavirus-took-north-vancouvers-lynn-valley-care-centre/">care centres</a> — have become today’s calamities. </p>
<p>In countries where dysfunctional politics leads to incoherent policy responses, and mixed messages to the public, COVID-19 will take an even <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/us/doctor-charged-hydroxychloroquine-trump/index.html">deadlier toll</a>. </p>
<p>And yet the very unfairness of the pandemic may encourage a new egalitarianism. Public officials and citizens <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/6695351/coronavirus-doctors-nurses-tribute/">have praised</a> not only doctors and nurses, but also truck drivers, janitors and grocery store employees.</p>
<p>In some countries, there is talk of a universal basic income. <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/spain-discusses-basic-income-for-the-poorest-amid-coronavirus-fallout/a-53096390">Spain is considering this idea</a> and it’s also been <a href="https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2020-04/pope-letter-popular-movements-universal-basic-wage.html">championed by the Pope</a>. </p>
<p>Beyond the obvious imperative of physical distancing, practising good hygiene and staying home to flatten the epidemic curve, our ethical challenge is to harness fairness in the fight against COVID-19. By appealing to our sense of fairness, politicians may be laying the foundation for a new kind of social equality — in our health-care systems, our economic policies and in our democracies.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/135983/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Politicians and public health officials appeal to our sense of fairness in requesting the public’s co-operation in controlling the pandemic. But COVID-19 doesn’t affect everyone equally.Judy Illes, Professor of Neurology and Director of Neuroethics Canada, University of British ColumbiaMax Cameron, Acting Director, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1229942019-12-16T13:43:18Z2019-12-16T13:43:18ZHow can we make sure that algorithms are fair?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306922/original/file-20191214-85404-157evsb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=35%2C23%2C3778%2C2449&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When algorithms make decisions with real-world consequences, they need to be fair.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/robot-judge-future-3d-rendering-650075173?studio=1">R-Type/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Using machines to augment human activity is nothing new. Egyptian <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ramses_II_at_Kadesh.jpg">hieroglyphs</a> show the use of horse-drawn carriages even before 300 B.C. Ancient Indian literature such as <a href="https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.199988/2015.199988">“Silapadikaram”</a> has described animals being used for farming. And one glance outside shows that today people use motorized vehicles to get around. </p>
<p>Where in the past human beings have augmented ourselves in physical ways, now the nature of augmentation also is more intelligent. Again, all one needs to do is look to cars – engineers are seemingly on the cusp of self-driving cars guided by artificial intelligence. Other devices are in various stages of becoming more intelligent. Along the way, interactions between people and machines are changing. </p>
<p>Machine and human intelligences bring different strengths to the table. Researchers like me are working to understand how algorithms can complement human skills while at the same time minimizing the liabilities of relying on machine intelligence. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=E0ihamsAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">As a machine learning expert</a>, I predict there will soon be a new balance between human and machine intelligence, a shift that humanity hasn’t encountered before.</p>
<p>Such changes often elicit fear of the unknown, and in this case, one of the unknowns is how machines make decisions. This is especially so when it comes to fairness. Can machines be fair in a way that people understand? </p>
<h2>When people are illogical</h2>
<p>To humans, fairness is often at the heart of a good decision. Decision-making tends to rely on both the emotional and rational centers of our brains, what <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ImhakoAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman</a> calls <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374533557">System 1 and System 2 thinking</a>. Decision theorists believe that the emotional centers of the brain have been quite well developed across the ages, while brain areas involved in rational or logical thinking evolved more recently. The rational and logical part of the brain, what Kahneman calls System 2, has given humans an advantage over other species. </p>
<p>However, because System 2 was more recently developed, human decision-making is often buggy. This is why many decisions are illogical, inconsistent and suboptimal.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0026750">preference reversal</a> is a well-known yet illogical phenomenon that people exhibit: In it, a person who prefers choice A over B and B over C does not necessarily prefer A over C. Or consider that researchers have found that criminal court judges <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108">tend to be more lenient</a> with parole decisions right after lunch breaks than at the close of the day.</p>
<p>Part of the problem is that our brains have trouble precisely computing probabilities without appropriate training. We often use irrelevant information or are influenced by extraneous factors. This is where machine intelligence can be helpful.</p>
<h2>Machines are logical…to a fault</h2>
<p>Well-designed machine intelligence can be consistent and useful in making optimal decisions. By their nature, they can be logical in the mathematical sense – they simply don’t stray from the program’s instruction. In a well-designed machine-learning algorithm, one would not encounter the illogical preference reversals that people frequently exhibit, for example. Within margins of statistical errors, the decisions from machine intelligence are consistent.</p>
<p>The problem is that machine intelligence is not always well designed. </p>
<p>As algorithms become more powerful and are incorporated into more parts of life, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=E0ihamsAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">scientists like me</a> expect this new world, one with a different balance between machine and human intelligence, to be the norm of the future.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306923/original/file-20191214-85386-5wdp5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306923/original/file-20191214-85386-5wdp5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306923/original/file-20191214-85386-5wdp5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306923/original/file-20191214-85386-5wdp5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306923/original/file-20191214-85386-5wdp5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306923/original/file-20191214-85386-5wdp5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306923/original/file-20191214-85386-5wdp5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306923/original/file-20191214-85386-5wdp5t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Judges’ rulings about parole can come down to what the computer program advises.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/justice-law-concept-female-judge-courtroom-1559469659">THICHA SATAPITANON/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the criminal justice system, judges use algorithms during parole decisions to calculate recidivism risks. In theory, this practice could overcome any bias introduced by lunch breaks or exhaustion at the end of the day. Yet when journalists from <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing">ProPublica conducted an investigation</a>, they found these algorithms were unfair: white men with prior armed robbery convictions were rated as lower risk than African American females who were convicted of misdemeanors.</p>
<p>There are many more such examples of machine learning algorithms later found to be unfair, including <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/10/amazon-hiring-ai-gender-bias-recruiting-engine">Amazon and its recruiting</a> and <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-gorillas-photo-recognition-algorithm-ai">Google’s image labeling</a>.</p>
<p>Researchers have been aware of these problems and have worked to impose restrictions that ensure fairness from the outset. For example, an algorithm called CB (color blind) imposes the restriction that any discriminating variables, such as race or gender, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117558?seq=1">should not be used in predicting the outcomes</a>. Another, called DP (demographic parity), ensures that groups are proportionally fair. In other words, the <a href="http://papers.nips.cc/paper/6315-satisfying-real-world-goals-with-dataset-constraints">proportion of the group receiving a positive outcome</a> is equal or fair across both the discriminating and nondiscriminating groups.</p>
<p>Researchers and policymakers are starting to take up the mantle. IBM has open-sourced many of their algorithms and released them under the “<a href="https://aif360.mybluemix.net/">AI Fairness 360</a>” banner. And the National Science Foundation recently accepted proposals from scientists who want to bolster the research foundation that underpins fairness in AI.</p>
<h2>Improving the fairness of machines’ decisions</h2>
<p>I believe that existing fair machine algorithms are weak in many ways. This weakness often stems from the criteria used to ensure fairness. Most algorithms that impose “fairness restriction” such as demographic parity (DP) and color blindness (CB) are focused on ensuring fairness at the outcome level. If there are two people from different subpopulations, the imposed restrictions ensure that the outcome of their decisions is consistent across the groups. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306924/original/file-20191214-85376-19ssya3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306924/original/file-20191214-85376-19ssya3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306924/original/file-20191214-85376-19ssya3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306924/original/file-20191214-85376-19ssya3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306924/original/file-20191214-85376-19ssya3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306924/original/file-20191214-85376-19ssya3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306924/original/file-20191214-85376-19ssya3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306924/original/file-20191214-85376-19ssya3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Beyond just the inputs and the outputs, algorithm designers need to take into account how groups will change their behavior to adapt to the algorithm.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/cloud-computing-202560511">elenabsl/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While this is a good first step, researchers need to look beyond the outcomes alone and focus on the process as well. For instance, when an algorithm is used, the subpopulations that are affected will naturally change their efforts in response. Those changes need to be taken into account, too. Because they have not been taken into account, my colleagues and I focus on what we call “best response fairness.” </p>
<p>If the subpopulations are inherently similar, their effort level to achieve the same outcome should also be the same even after the algorithm is implemented. This simple definition of best response fairness is not met by DP- and CB-based algorithms. For example, DP requires the positive rates to be equal even if one of the subpopulations does not put in effort. In other words, people in one subpopulation would have to work significantly harder to achieve the same outcome. While a DP-based algorithm would consider it fair – after all, both subpopulations achieved the same outcome – most humans would not.</p>
<p>There is another fairness restriction known as <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.02413.pdf">equalized odds (EO)</a> which satisfies the notion of best response fairness – it ensures fairness even if you take into account the response of the subpopulations. However, to impose the restriction, the algorithm needs to know the discriminating variables (say, black/white), and it will end up setting explicitly different thresholds for subpopulations – so, the thresholds will be explicitly different for white and black parole candidates.</p>
<p>While that would help increase fairness of outcomes, such a procedure may violate the notion of equal treatment required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For this reason, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG31">a California Law Review article</a> has urged policymakers to amend the legislation so that fair algorithms that utilize this approach can be used without potential legal repercussion. </p>
<p>These constraints motivate my colleagues and me to develop an algorithm that is not only “best response fair” but also does not explicitly use discriminating variables. We demonstrate the performance of our algorithms theoretically using simulated data sets and real sample data sets from the web. When we tested our algorithms with the widely used sample data sets, we were surprised at how well they performed relative to open-source algorithms assembled by IBM.</p>
<p>Our work suggests that, despite the challenges, machines and algorithms will continue to be useful to humans – for physical jobs as well as knowledge jobs. We must remain vigilant that any decisions made by algorithms are fair, and it is imperative that everyone understands their limitations. If we can do that, then it’s possible that human and machine intelligence will complement each other in valuable ways.</p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122994/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karthik Kannan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A machine learning expert predicts a new balance between human and machine intelligence is on the horizon. For that to be good news, researchers need to figure out how to design algorithms that are fair.Karthik Kannan, Professor of Management and Director of the Krenicki Center for Business Analytics & Machine Learning, Purdue UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1273362019-11-20T14:59:30Z2019-11-20T14:59:30ZQuest for unity in South Africa: a philosophical perspective<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302444/original/file-20191119-111686-1x93sk6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">South Africans celebrate the Springboks winning the 2019 Rugby Woirld Cup.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EFE-EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Following the Springboks’ recent Rugby World Cup victory, South Africans are once again talking about unity. More accurately: they are arguing about the meaning of unity. In the <a href="https://www.heraldlive.co.za/sport/2019-11-12-siya-kolisi-calls-for-unity-in-sa/">one camp</a> are those who see the victorious Springbok team as proof that the country’s racial divisions are superficial. That, deep down, people are more united than divided.</p>
<p>In the <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2019-11-13-bokke-must-fall-5-quotes-from-mbuyiseni-ndlozis-parliament-address/">other camp</a> are those who argue that Springbok captain Siya Kolisi lifting the World Cup trophy does not change a thing about the vast racialised inequality that plagues South Africa. In their view, the supposed unity is a sham.</p>
<p>Those in the second camp have come in for a great deal of <a href="https://www.thesouthafrican.com/sport/rugby-world-cup/springboks-world-cup-win-eff-reaction/">criticism</a>. Many people, myself included, have been inspired by those glorious 80 minutes on the field and by the cheering crowds welcoming the Springboks home. It seems mean-spirited to treat these feelings of communal celebration as illegitimate. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the feel-good factor will not persuade those in the second camp to change their minds. After all, they are not denying that people find the World Cup win inspirational. They are denying that these feelings are proof of any deeper social cohesion.</p>
<p>Is there a way out of this seemingly intractable <a href="https://ewn.co.za/2019/11/10/mcgluwa-responds-to-ndlozi-s-tweet-says-sa-needs-unity">dispute</a>? I think there is.</p>
<p>It starts with acknowledging that political differences among South Africans are real, and that they are often part of a larger network of other values – moral, religious, personal, social – about which they also disagree.</p>
<p>Many of their deepest disagreements stem from the divisions imposed by <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa">apartheid</a>, which divided people along racial lines. These persist, despite apartheid having formally ended in 1994. The celebratory feelings in the wake of the Rugby World Cup win are not enough to resolve these differences. </p>
<p>But even if South Africans’ racial divisions could be magically erased, people still wouldn’t be carbon copies of one another. They would still disagree about many things, both trivial and profound.</p>
<p>Acknowledging the range and depth of their differences can free South Africans from an ideal of unity as perfect agreement about everything they value. It would also rule out the assumption that there is an existing social harmony lurking just below the surface.</p>
<p>Once people have ruled out an impossible ideal of unity, they are free to consider what kind of unity is possible for them to achieve. South Africa’s stokvel model is an example of principled unity based on fair cooperation for mutual benefit. A stokvel is a <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Stokvels-South-Africa-Informal-community/dp/0958310521">mutual savings and credit association</a>, whose members enter into an agreement to contribute a specified amount of money or goods to the common stock, and are then paid out from time to time in accordance with rules which they had previously agreed upon. </p>
<h2>Two kinds of unity</h2>
<p>Renowned American philosopher <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/">John Rawls’</a> ideas about <a href="http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3983&context=flr">good and bad reasons for social stability</a> show why the stokvel is a model of unity that is worth emulating.</p>
<p>Drawing on Rawls’ ideas, it is possible to distinguish between expedient unity (unity for the wrong reasons) and principled unity (unity for the right reasons). Expedient unity is the answer to the question: what kind of cooperation from others would benefit me? Principled unity is the answer to the question: what kind of cooperation would be fair to everyone?</p>
<p>A society is a cooperative venture in so far as it involves the large-scale exchange of skills, labour, services and goods, subject to laws and regulations.</p>
<p>Unity for the wrong reasons reduces social cooperation to whatever happens to benefit a particular person or group. Under these circumstances, political, economic and social relationships become a zero-sum game in which one group profits at the expense of another. Society is divided into winners and losers, with the latter paying the price for the benefits accruing to the former.</p>
<p>This kind of win-lose cooperation is inherently unstable. People generally do not willingly accept a smaller share of the benefits of cooperation – fewer freedoms and opportunities, less political power, a smaller share of income and wealth, greater legal restrictions – merely so that others can have a larger share.</p>
<p>When we expect others to sacrifice their own interests in service of ours, we treat them as things, mere tools, and not as persons. And any kind of social unity between the users and the used will only last as long as the latter lack the power to overthrow the former.</p>
<p>Unity for the right reasons, on the other hand, is based on principle rather than mere self-interest. The most promising principle here is <a href="https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/jbell/rawls1.pdf">fairness</a>.</p>
<p>When members of a society believe that no one benefits unfairly from participating in the economy or upholding the law, they have good reasons to keep on cooperating with one another. Fairness is not measured only in terms of the size of each one’s share, but also in terms of the rules of the cooperation itself.</p>
<p>In this regard, South Africa can learn a lot from the stokvel model that is already common in the country’s black community.</p>
<h2>The stokvel model</h2>
<p>Many South Africans will already be familiar with a model of this kind of fair cooperation: </p>
<p>Each member of the stokvel is <a href="https://collections.concourt.org.za/handle/20.500.12144/12404">simultaneously the others’ debtor and creditor</a>. The purpose of participation is not to subordinate one’s own interests to those of the others, or to subordinate others’ interests to one’s own, but to benefit from mutual cooperation. Each member can only achieve their aims in so far as they enable the others to achieve theirs.</p>
<p>A well-run stokvel engenders mutual trust. When everyone agrees that the rules of cooperation are fair, they have reason to honour each other’s claims when they fall due.</p>
<p>The stokvel offers us an example of a form of unity rooted in fair cooperation, mutual obligation and the commitment to share each other’s fate. It is not the superficial unity of multiracial sports teams, irrespective of on-going race-based inequality. But it is also not the narrow unity of racial nationalism or party interest.</p>
<p>This picture of the stokvel is, of course, an idealised version of the real thing. Actual stokvels are likely to be subject to all the usual human failings. However, at its best, the stokvel is an indigenous solution to the problem of fostering social unity among people with different values, needs and interests. In particular, it shows that unity is not something we discover; it is a side-effect of cooperation, and of how we treat one another in the process.</p>
<p>There is no quick fix for the divisions that run through South African society. However, the stokvel model provides a useful starting point for a conversation about the kind of social unity that is worth striving for. This conversation is the first, necessary step in bringing about such unity, in so far as it can be brought about at all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127336/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vasti Roodt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Unity for the wrong reasons reduces social cooperation to whatever happens to benefit a particular person or group, making it a zero-sum game.Vasti Roodt, Vasti Roodt is Associate Professor and Head of PROSPER (Promoting Social and Political Ethics Research) in the Department of Philosophy, Stellenbosch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1073492019-01-04T11:33:03Z2019-01-04T11:33:03ZWhy does it feel good to see someone fail?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252279/original/file-20190102-32139-1845c2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">To feel a pang of pleasure at the misfortune of others is to be human.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/masks-good-evil-lie-on-white-1154533906">VixCompaNi/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the Pixar animated film “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2096673/">Inside Out</a>,” most of the plot plays out inside protagonist Riley’s head, where five emotions – Joy, Sadness, Fear, Disgust and Anger – direct her behavior.</p>
<p>The film was released to glowing reviews. But director Pete Docter later <a href="http://nerdist.com/check-out-the-inside-out-emotions-that-didnt-end-up-in-the-movie/">admitted</a> that he always regretted that one emotion didn’t make the cut: Schadenfreude. </p>
<p>Schadenfreude, which literally means “<a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/schadenfreude">harm joy</a>” in German, is the peculiar pleasure people derive from others’ misfortune. </p>
<p>You might feel it when the career of a <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kim-kardashian-age-schadenfreude-936783">high-profile celebrity</a> craters, when a particularly noxious criminal is <a href="http://theconversation.com/no-shortage-of-media-schadenfreude-as-fake-sheikh-is-sent-to-prison-67200">locked up</a> or when <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/germany-europe-world-cup/564014/">a rival sporting team</a> gets vanquished.</p>
<p>Psychologists have long struggled with how to best understand, explain and study the emotion: It arises in such a wide range of situations that it can seem almost impossible to come up with some sort of unifying framework. Yet that’s exactly what my colleagues and I have attempted to do.</p>
<h2>Schadenfreude’s many faces</h2>
<p>One challenge continues to plague those who research schadenfreude: There’s no agreed-upon definition. </p>
<p>Some think it’s best to study the emotion in the context of social comparison, so they’ll tend to focus on the way <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167296222005">envy</a> or <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/014616720202800708">resentment</a> interacts with schadenfreude. </p>
<p>Others view the emotion through the lens of justice and fairness, and whether <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-15718-002">the sufferer deserved his or her misfortune</a>. </p>
<p>Finally, the last group thinks that schadenfreude emerges out of <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.84.5.932">intergroup dynamics</a> – members of a group deriving joy out of the suffering of those outside of the group.</p>
<p>In our view, the different definitions point to multiple sides of schadenfreude, each of which might have distinct developmental origins.</p>
<h2>The blossoming of schadenfreude</h2>
<p>Perhaps the writers of “Inside Out,” when deciding to jettison “Schadenfreude,” thought that it would prove too difficult for children to grasp.</p>
<p>There’s evidence, however, that children begin to experience schadenfreude early in life. </p>
<p>For example, at four years old, children found someone else’s misfortune – like tripping and falling into a muddy puddle – funnier if that person <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjdp.12013">had previously done something to hurt other children</a>, such as breaking their toys. </p>
<p>Researchers have also found that two-year-old kids primed to be jealous of a peer <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100233">experience glee when that peer suffers a mishap</a>. By the age of seven, children feel more pleased after winning a game <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002209651200224X?via%3Dihub">if a rival lost than when both won the game</a>. </p>
<p>Finally, in a 2013 study, researchers had nine-month-old infants observe puppets interacting with one another. Some puppets “enjoyed” the same types of food that the infants enjoyed, while others had a different set of tastes. When some puppets “harmed” the other puppets, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612457785?journalCode=pssa">the researchers discovered</a> that the infants would rather see the puppets who didn’t share their tastes be hurt over the ones who did share their tastes.</p>
<h2>Bringing it all together</h2>
<p>Together, these studies show that schadenfreude is a complex emotion that seems to be deeply ingrained in the human condition.</p>
<p>Psychologists <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=McDqyssAAAAJ&hl=en">Scott Lilienfeld</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GfAXgJcAAAAJ&hl=en">Philippe Rochat</a> and <a href="http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/lab/Wang.html">I</a> wondered if there could be a way to unite the multiple facets of schadenfreude under the same umbrella.</p>
<p>Eventually, we settled on seeing schadenfreude as a form of <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045">dehumanization</a> – the act of depicting and viewing another person as less than human. </p>
<p>When most people hear the term “dehumanization,” they probably go to the worst-case scenario: a complete denial of someone’s humanity, a phenomenon relegated to torture chambers, battlefields and racist propaganda.</p>
<p>But this is a misconception. Psychologists have shown that people often view their own group in more human terms, and – <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4">in subtle ways</a> – can deny the full humanity of those outside of their group.</p>
<p>In our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732118X18301430">review</a>, we hypothesized that <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0037679">the more empathy</a> someone feels toward another person, the less likely they are to experience schadenfreude when that person suffers.</p>
<p>So in order for someone to feel schadenfreude toward another person – whether it’s a rival, someone in an outgroup or someone who’s committed a crime – they’ll need to subtly dehumanize them. Only then does the sufferer’s misfortune become rewarding.</p>
<p>This theory hasn’t been tested yet, so at the end of our review, we suggest ways schadenfreude’s early origins and individual differences can be placed under scientific scrutiny to study this novel hypothesis. </p>
<p>Linking schadenfreude with dehumanization might sound dark, especially because schadenfreude is such a universal emotion. But dehumanization occurs more often than most would like to think – and we believe it’s behind the pang of pleasure you feel when you see someone fail.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107349/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shensheng Wang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Schadenfreude seems to arise out of envy and a sense of justice. But some psychologists believe a darker impulse is at play.Shensheng Wang, Ph.D. Candidate in Psychology, Emory UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1065582018-11-08T10:37:00Z2018-11-08T10:37:00ZSouth Africa’s commissions of inquiry: what good can they do?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244524/original/file-20181108-74772-5karpy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former South African Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas gave damning evidence at the State capture commission.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sunday Times/Alan Skuy</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africans might be forgiven for expecting two key commissions of inquiry currently underway to change the country. Some of these expectations, however, are unrealistic, as a look at the commissions’ functions and powers show. </p>
<p>Some expectations might be met, but only if the commissions achieve public buy-in and generate enough pressure for change. </p>
<p>Whether they can do that depends not only on their powers but also on how they are run.</p>
<p>The probe into tax administration and governance at the <a href="http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/press-statements/president-ramaphosa-establishes-commission-inquiry-tax-administration-and">South African Revenue Service</a> – headed by Judge R Nugent – and has already led to the axing of Tom Moyane as head of the tax collection agency. The other inquiry – headed by Deputy Chief Justice Zondo – is looking into allegations that the South African state has been <a href="https://www.sastatecapture.org.za/">captured</a> by private business interests allied to former President Jacob Zuma. It’s expected to run for two years.</p>
<p>Unrealistic expectations about what commissions can achieve come from the fact that they’re often confused with courts of law. This isn’t surprising given that they seem to function like courts. For example, they’re often chaired by judges, affected parties are often represented by lawyers and witnesses take oaths to tell the truth. </p>
<p>But they aren’t courts. And it’s important to understand the difference between the two when it comes to their functions, powers, and procedures.</p>
<h2>The differences</h2>
<p>A court judgment is binding and has direct legal effect on the parties involved. The court will determine that the accused goes to prison, for example, or that the defendant pays damages. The only way affected parties can escape the court order is by getting it overturned on appeal or review by a higher court. </p>
<p>Commissions of inquiry, on the other hand, make non-binding recommendations to the person who set them up. (In the case of these two commissions, that’s President Cyril Ramaphosa.) Technically, all commissions do is offer the person who set them up advice. And they’re required to stick to the issues on which advice was requested. These are set out in the terms of reference which establish what questions the commission must answer, who will head it up and what its powers are. </p>
<p>Commissions of inquiry are completely different from courts when it comes to procedures too. </p>
<p>South Africans courts are adversarial. The judge sits as an outside observer while the two teams before her attempt to establish their version of events. Commissions of inquiry, on the other hand, are inquisitorial. This makes the commission the driver of the investigation itself. It seeks out the facts rather than waiting for two opposing parties to choose and present their evidence. In an inquisitorial process, the witnesses and their lawyers are <a href="https://www.politicsweb.co.za/documents/moyane-vs-sars-inquiry-judge-nugents-ruling">merely assisting</a> the commission’s investigation.</p>
<p>An important consequence of the inquisitorial process is that a commission is not bound by the same rules of evidence as in a court. Thus evidence will never be “inadmissible”, as the commission enjoys discretion to consider all evidence that it finds relevant to its inquiry. </p>
<h2>Why the confusion</h2>
<p>With these important distinctions in mind, why have some commissions become “judicialised” and lawyer-driven? Why was the first day of the Zondo Commission taken <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2018-08-21-zondo-turns-the-first-day-of-state-capture-inquiry-into-a-massive-yawn-fest/">up with technicalities</a>? Why have postponements been built into the process so that “implicated parties” can study the allegations made against them?</p>
<p>It’s not just to stave off the threat of a court challenge to any findings. Such a threat is, in fact, not much of a threat at all. Commissions of inquiry will not be subject to the (higher) standards of so-called “administrative” review unless their findings have a direct effect on the persons who might want to challenge them. But the direct effect would arise only when the president acts on the findings. </p>
<p>The president wouldn’t be subject to administrative review in many of these cases either. Instead, the president and the commission will be subject to review for “rationality”. A rationality review asks only whether there is a rational connection between the conduct challenged before the court and a legitimate governmental objective. </p>
<p>But commissions have another, equally crucial function – to educate the public and ensuring its buy-in for important processes of change and renewal.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244356/original/file-20181107-74769-14otren.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244356/original/file-20181107-74769-14otren.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244356/original/file-20181107-74769-14otren.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244356/original/file-20181107-74769-14otren.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244356/original/file-20181107-74769-14otren.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244356/original/file-20181107-74769-14otren.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244356/original/file-20181107-74769-14otren.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tom Moyane has been fired as South Africa’s tax boss.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sunday Times/Masi Losi</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>South Africans are already incensed at the loss of public funds to corruption, the devastation of public institutions at the hands of those who sought to profit by it, the damage this has caused to the country’s economy and the suffering it has inflicted on the poorest in society. </p>
<p>But all South Africans have to be on board with the solution to the problem. This sort of buy-in is possible only if the facts are widely known, the relevant law is clear, and the commission investigating the problem is accessible to the public and is seen as legitimate.</p>
<p>A commission can achieve this by having open hearings, broadcast publicly, public access (such as a <a href="https://www.sastatecapture.org.za/">website</a> and an enquiry desk) and a strong, independent commissioner. </p>
<p>This is where the judicial procedure comes in. Although it can render the body <a href="http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2014/10/national-inquiry-mmiw-yes-do-it-right">less accessible</a>, it does have the strong advantage of satisfying people’s innate sense of natural justice.</p>
<p>And the decisions of the commissions will only have legitimacy in the eyes of the public if they are seen to <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-11-02-with-moyanes-dismissal-ramaphosas-slo-mo-revolution-claims-a-crucial-scalp/">treat people fairly</a>. That is one of the reasons why implicated people need enough time to respond to the allegations against them.</p>
<h2>The value of the commissions</h2>
<p>The Nugent Commission is due to report soon while the Zondo Commission may take two years. </p>
<p>The long delay between the advent of a crisis and a commission’s report is often used as an argument that they’re being used to put matters <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/feb/03/law.politics">“on hold”</a>. </p>
<p>However, commissions of inquiry don’t remove an issue from the public eye if they’re run openly and transparently. Instead, they draw the public in to the issue, educating and inviting engagement. The most important work of the Zondo and Nugent Commissions might be done before their formal function – the submission of their reports – is completed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106558/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cathleen Powell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Unrealistic expectations about what commissions can achieve comes from the fact that they’re often confused with courts of law.Cathleen Powell, Associate Professor in Public Law, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/882812017-11-29T02:27:07Z2017-11-29T02:27:07ZTaxpayers want more fairness. GOP plan to ‘reform’ the tax code doesn’t deliver<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197381/original/file-20171202-5399-1vb15w5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Protesters voice their disapproval of the Republican tax bill on Capitol Hill.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Republicans seem to be operating under the assumption that if the details of their tax “reform” plan are aired for too long, the whole thing might fall apart.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/us/politics/house-tax-overhaul-bill.html?_r=0">House passed its version</a> of the most sweeping overhaul of the tax code in a generation on Nov. 16, barely seven weeks since Republicans disclosed their “<a href="https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/Tax-Framework.pdf">unified framework</a>.” The last major rewrite, passed in 1986, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/23/business/tax-reform-act-1986-measure-came-together-tax-bill-for-textbooks.html?pagewanted=all">took two years</a>. </p>
<p>The Senate hopes to follow with similar lightning speed, but with constant tweaking <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/us/politics/senate-tax-bills-potential-hurdle-republicans.html">intended to appease</a> wavering lawmakers, <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/retracting-and-correcting-estimates">groups</a> trying to analyze its impact are <a href="https://taxfoundation.org/response-center-equitable-growth-tax-model-critique/">struggling to keep up</a>. In other words, senators are scheduled to vote on a bill this week without knowing exactly how it’ll affect their constituents.</p>
<p>Amid this chaos, it’s easy to forget why regular Americans want tax reform in the first place. <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2017/04/14/top-frustrations-with-tax-system-sense-that-corporations-wealthy-dont-pay-fair-share/">Research</a> has shown that their most important gripe about taxes is the demoralizing feeling that the system is hopelessly complex and that other people are getting away with not paying their fair share. To use the president’s words, people think the “<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-details-corporate-rate-individual-brackets-deductions-cuts-2017-9">system is rigged</a>.” </p>
<p>I’ve been researching and teaching tax policy for a dozen years, and I believe the Republican tax plan will only exacerbate that feeling. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196851/original/file-20171129-28892-l8qtp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196851/original/file-20171129-28892-l8qtp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196851/original/file-20171129-28892-l8qtp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196851/original/file-20171129-28892-l8qtp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196851/original/file-20171129-28892-l8qtp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196851/original/file-20171129-28892-l8qtp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196851/original/file-20171129-28892-l8qtp7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Trump, escorted by Sen. John Barrasso and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, popped by Congress to twist some arms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>More than math</h2>
<p>Politicians and the media frequently talk about current efforts at tax reform as if this were a <a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/11/14/562884070/charts-heres-how-gop-s-tax-breaks-would-shift-money-to-rich-poor-americans">math problem</a>. </p>
<p>Cut taxes for some groups, raise them on others and in the end hit a preordained target – in this case, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/us/politics/house-budget-blueprint-tax-cut.html">US$1.5 trillion over 10 years</a>. This framing assumes the only thing Americans care about is minimizing their own taxes – though, as it stands, <a href="https://nyti.ms/2icXs4P">many Americans</a> may be surprised to find their <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.ddf63f2593ae">taxes will go up</a> under the GOP plan. </p>
<p>However, <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10977.html">research</a> by Brookings Fellow Vanessa Williamson reveals that Americans do not reflexively hate taxes. In fact, her research shows that most Americans view paying taxes as a moral responsibility and a fundamental act of citizenship. </p>
<p>What frustrates them, Williamson finds, is the tax system’s “deeply disempowering” complexity, the feeling that it was designed “with someone else in mind.” This resentful and defensive disposition is regularly reinforced when policy experts lament the public’s lack of knowledge about taxes, smugly reminding us, for example, that <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/22/corporations-do-not-pay-taxes-they-cant-theyre-not-people/#4819f9016222">corporations don’t pay taxes, people do</a>.</p>
<p>Tulane University economist Steven M. Sheffrin’s <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/tax-fairness-and-folk-justice/FBCF5566A41C9E345FFB0FEF5D0CECC3#.Wh2yMDEzmyk.google">research</a> sheds additional light on taxpayer anger. He focuses on the process of taxpaying, not just its outcomes. Taxpayers want to be treated with dignity and respect and have a voice in decision-making. They want to be able to look at various provisions of the tax code and decipher the underlying logic and justifications. They want to see the coherent and consistent application of a principle that defines one’s “fair share.” </p>
<p>Only 27 percent of <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2017/04/14/top-frustrations-with-tax-system-sense-that-corporations-wealthy-dont-pay-fair-share/">those polled by Pew</a> earlier this year were bothered “a lot” by how much they personally pay. Rather, they were bothered most by the feeling that particular groups such as corporations and the rich were not paying their fair share.</p>
<p>Republicans have sold their plan as a simplification of the tax code, eliminating loopholes and collapsing brackets, qualifying it as a “tax reform” not just a “tax cut.” But as Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center has pointed out, the plan would “<a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/dont-confuse-trumps-tax-cuts-tax-reform">firmly maintain the basic structure of today’s tax code</a>” and really is “a giant tax cut designed to benefit mostly businesses and high-income households.” </p>
<p>These proposed reforms address none of the taxpayers’ concerns about fairness. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196855/original/file-20171129-28862-1d8q0ip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196855/original/file-20171129-28862-1d8q0ip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196855/original/file-20171129-28862-1d8q0ip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196855/original/file-20171129-28862-1d8q0ip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196855/original/file-20171129-28862-1d8q0ip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196855/original/file-20171129-28862-1d8q0ip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196855/original/file-20171129-28862-1d8q0ip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Speaker of the House Paul Ryan holds a proposed ‘postcard tax filing form.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Real tax reform</h2>
<p>If Congress and President Donald Trump were serious about reforming the system so that taxpayers could actually feel good about it, they would do a number of things differently:</p>
<ol>
<li><p><strong>Eliminate complexity, not just replace old complexity with new.</strong> The <a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561712483/gops-dream-postcard-size-tax-return">postcard-size tax return prop</a> has been making the rounds, but no one is falling for it. While the current proposals would rightly eliminate some layers of complexity such as the alternative minimum tax and <a href="https://itep.org/the-domestic-production-activities-deduction-costly-complex-and-ineffective/">widely abused corporate loopholes</a>, most of the existing complexity would remain (loopholes for <a href="https://psmag.com/economics/carried-interest-remains-unaddressed-by-republican-legislation">hedge fund managers</a>, <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/gop-plan-retains-tax-break-for-owners-of-golf-courses.html?platform=hootsuite">golf course owners</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/07/two-words-in-the-gop-tax-bill-means-tens-of-billions-for-the-super-wealthy/?utm_term=.67215f077dc4">wealthy heirs</a> among the most egregious). And new layers of complexity, such as special rules for <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-tax-proposal-could-weaken-faith-in-the-systems-fairness-76830">pass-through businesses</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/business/economy/corporate-tax.html?mtrref=www.google.com">offshore profits</a>, would be created.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Acknowledge that we are using the tax system for a lot more than just raising revenue.</strong> Much of the complexity that people object to is a result of using tax breaks to fund non-tax-related policy goals. Political scientist Christopher Howard’s research about the “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/6220.html">hidden welfare state</a>” has shown how tax breaks are increasingly used to direct benefits to housing, education and a multitude of other policy areas. True tax reform would take stock of all of these provisions, determine whether they are achieving their <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/14/the-worst-tax-breaks/retirement-break-for-the-rich-but-not-the-poor">intended goals</a> and decide whether they should remain in the tax code. The GOP tax plan <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/11/27/what-happened-to-those-special-interest-loopholes-congress-was-going-to-close/">leaves most of these loopholes</a> untouched. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Ensuring businesses pay their fair share.</strong> When it comes to politics, corporations insist that they are “<a href="https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution">people</a>” with the right to speak or donate money as they wish. However, when it comes to taxes, corporations claim they <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/22/corporations-do-not-pay-taxes-they-cant-theyre-not-people/#4819f9016222">aren’t people at all</a> and therefore their taxes should be reduced as much as possible. Republicans made lowering the corporate tax rate a centerpiece of their plan. But companies can’t have it both ways. Given the benefits they receive – from political speech to legal protections and infrastructure – it’s only fair that companies share the burden like everyone else. True tax reform is about finding the right balance between helping businesses compete in the global economy and living up to their obligations to be good citizens and pay their fair share. The Republican plan addresses the first point and ignores the second.</p></li>
</ol>
<h2>Winners and losers</h2>
<p>Instead of having an honest discussion about fixing a profoundly broken system, Republicans are pitting us against each other: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opinion/republican-taxes-next-generation.html">rich versus middle class</a>, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-12/why-american-workers-pay-twice-as-much-in-taxes-as-wealthy-investors">capital versus labor</a>, <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/359669-red-state-lawmakers-find-blue-state-piggy-bank">red states versus blue states</a>, <a href="http://time.com/4993389/tax-cuts-your-children/">current Americans versus future generations</a>.</p>
<p>And while we are distracted, fighting each other to be in the winners instead of losers column, they hope to pass exactly the bill they want: a $1.5 trillion gift to the wealthiest Americans. </p>
<p>Tax reform should be more than just a math problem. As long as we waste our energy fighting each other, we will never be able to create a system that makes us proud to pay our fair share.</p>
<p>And regular Americans will be left wondering: “Wasn’t this supposed to be about making the system simpler?”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88281/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephanie Leiser does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Far from dispelling the notion among Americans that the system is ‘rigged’ against them, Republican tax plans are more likely to make matters worse.Stephanie Leiser, Lecturer in Public Policy, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/775492017-05-11T19:23:43Z2017-05-11T19:23:43ZShorten fights on fairness in budget reply, but will it be enough?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168921/original/file-20170511-32624-asd2zm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bill Shorten used his budget-in-reply speech to appeal to middle Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Opposition Leader Bill Shorten is under real pressure for the first time since the 2016 election, as the government attempts to wedge Labor with a circuit-breaker budget.</p>
<p>Shorten used his <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/budget-2017/opinion/bill-shorten-budget-reply-2017-speech/news-story/4528cfd85d651d6cc05195bdf58c1faa">budget-in-reply speech</a> to appeal to middle Australia, putting forward an argument that Labor is the only party that can be trusted to deliver a fair go. He argued the government’s so-called <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/could-you-be-the-first-liberal-treasurer-in-history-to-deliver-a-labor-budget/news-story/3e61030e268c5a10c8d2c2f71877f6ec">“Labor-lite budget”</a> is unfair, bringing benefits only to rich.</p>
<p>Since the election, it seems everything – <a href="https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2017/05/10/essential-research-54-46-labor-5/">including the polls</a> – has gone Labor’s way. The Turnbull government has been plagued by infighting and its messages have failed to resonate with the electorate.</p>
<p>However, over the last few weeks – starting with <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-government-axes-457-work-visa-experts-react-76321">changes to 457 visas</a> and the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-16/snowy-hydro-scheme-funding-boost-to-secure-electricity-supply/8358502">expansion of the Snowy Hydro scheme</a> – the Coalition has begun a new conversation with the electorate.</p>
<h2>Shorten’s pitch</h2>
<p>The 2017 budget positioned the government as more centrist. It contained several policy positions ordinarily associated with Labor.</p>
<p>The government’s three-word slogan for the budget was <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/05/09/budget-focus-fairness-opportunity-and-security">“fairness, opportunity and security”</a>. It has tried to position itself as a “doing government”, taking on <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/04/27/morrisons-good-bad-debt-claim-under-fire-ahead-budget">good debt</a> to invest in infrastructure, funding the NDIS into the future, and adopting measures from the Gonski schools funding plan.</p>
<p>Shorten’s speech was framed around modern class politics. He claimed Labor is the only party that can be trusted to protect low-income workers, and look after the interests of the middle class in terms of Medicare, universities and schools.</p>
<p>Shorten refuted Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s claim that the budget is a fair one:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This prime minister of many words has learned a new one – fairness – and he’s saying it as often as he can. But repetition is no substitute for conviction … This isn’t a Labor budget – and it’s not a fair budget … Fairness isn’t measured by what you say – it’s revealed by what you do.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is highly unlikely that this budget will be viewed as negatively as the 2014 budget. But Labor needs to convincingly discredit it to the point that the government cannot use it to help restore its standing in the eyes of voters.</p>
<p>Labor will need to attack on two fronts. The first will be scare tactics. Voters will need to be convinced they are unnecessarily worse off under this budget.</p>
<p>Shorten claimed:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There’s nothing fair about making middle-class and working-class Australians pay more, while millionaires and multinationals pay less.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He highlighted higher tax rates for low-income workers, as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, as well as the traditional Liberal threat to Medicare. Shorten also posited schools would be much worse off due to the gap in promised funding between Labor and the government. </p>
<p>The second line of attack will be providing an alternative set of policy options that voters view as more attractive than those put forward by the government.</p>
<h2>What is Labor offering voters?</h2>
<p>In his speech, Shorten promised a Labor government would remove the <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-2017-sees-medicare-rebate-freeze-slowly-lifted-and-more-funding-for-the-ndis-experts-respond-77315">Medicare rebate freeze</a>, rather than wait for indexation to begin in July 2020 – thereby reducing the cost of health care. Labor will also restore A$22 billion to the schools sector.</p>
<p>As an alternative to the measures to assist first home buyers through a savings scheme, Shorten said Labor had a plan for affordable housing that would include the construction of 55,000 new homes over three years, and create 25,000 new jobs every year. He also noted Labor’s commitment to developing more public housing.</p>
<p>In what is likely to prove a popular idea, Labor will seek to close the loopholes allowing multinational companies avoiding tax in Australia.</p>
<p>Likewise, in an effort to halt tax avoidance by wealthy individuals, Labor plans to limit the amount an individual can deduct for the management of their tax affairs to A$3,000 per year. Shorten claimed that less than 1% of taxpayers would be affected, and that measure would save the budget A$1.3 billion over the medium term.</p>
<p>Shorten continued to argue that a royal commission into the banking industry is required. </p>
<h2>Where does Labor stand on individual budget items?</h2>
<p>Labor needs time to review the proposed legislation resulting from the budget in order to determine what it is willing to support. But Shorten outlined Labor’s position on several measures.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>It supports the additional Medicare levy to fund the NDIS. However, it wants to limit the levy to the top two tax brackets, so that only those earning more than $87,000 per year will be impacted.</p></li>
<li><p>It supports the bank levy – but simultaneously put pressure on the government, claiming it is responsible for stopping the banks from passing the cost onto customers. </p></li>
<li><p>It does not support the cuts to universities or the proposed increase in university fees for students. </p></li>
<li><p>It does not support the plan to allow first home buyers to use up to $30,000 in voluntary superannuation contributions. Shorten described the policy as “microscopic assistance”.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>In this game, it’s the message that matters</h2>
<p>This is a political budget, and so we should expect in the coming weeks that both parties will attempt to appeal to voters’ base instincts, rather than presenting considered arguments for or against policies.</p>
<p>Thus, the government is focusing on forcing greedy banks to “pay their fair share”, secure in the knowledge that former Queensland premier Anna Bligh, as head of the Australian Bankers’ Association, is unlikely to be able to cut through the <a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-podcast-mathias-cormann-and-anna-bligh-on-the-new-bank-tax-77506">bank-bashing mentality</a> of the average Australian voter.</p>
<p>Likewise, Shorten will campaign hard on the natural end of the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Income-and-deductions/In-detail/Temporary-budget-repair-levy/">temporary budget repair levy</a>, which was introduced in the 2014 budget. He is claiming this is a tax cut for the rich at the same time as the government is making everyday Australians pay more tax through a higher Medicare levy.</p>
<h2>Interesting times ahead</h2>
<p>Shorten is right: this budget is about trust. </p>
<p>The government and the opposition both need to convince average working and middle class voters that their policies will provide Australians with the best outcome. In some ways, this is politics as usual. </p>
<p>But, with the polls leaning to Labor and voters’ faith in the government’s ability to deliver low, the stakes seem higher than normal – especially as voters are presented with two positions not as divergent as they have been in recent years.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77549/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natalie Mast is the Chair of The Conversation's Editorial Board.</span></em></p>Labor needs to convincingly discredit the 2017 budget to the point that the government cannot use it to help restore its standing in the eyes of voters.Natalie Mast, Associate Director, Business Intelligence & Analytics, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/669902016-10-17T00:22:12Z2016-10-17T00:22:12ZWhy auctions are a better way to resolve business splits<p>Deciding on the best way to divvy up a business when the owners decide to go their own ways can be tricky. It has to be fair in the eyes of everyone involved, but what if everyone has different expectations?</p>
<p>When people first form a business partnership, they’re often advised to sign a binding contract that specifies how the assets will be divided in the event of death, disability, divorce or departure. This is similar to a prenuptial agreement couples sign before they get married.</p>
<p>However it’s often not practical to sell the business to a third party and divide the proceeds. The partners may have skills or knowledge that make the business less valuable to a third party than to them. </p>
<p>So we’ve developed another way of dissolving business relationships - through an auction.</p>
<h2>The different ways of dividing</h2>
<p>In the United States the most common exit mechanism for two-person, equal-share partnerships is the “Texas shootout”. The partner who wishes to dissolve the partnership triggers a shootout by naming their price. The other partner is then compelled to either buy out their partner or sell their own interest at that price.</p>
<p>A Texas shootout is like a “divide and choose” mechanism used by parents everywhere to split a piece of cake between two children. This is where one child divides the cake and the other child chooses which piece to take.</p>
<p>Divide and choose has the compelling feature that each child can guarantee themselves at least half the cake. By cutting the cake in what he regards as two equal pieces, the divider gets half the cake. By choosing the “larger” piece, the chooser gets what she regards to be at least half the cake.</p>
<p>Likewise, in a Texas shootout each partner can guarantee they capture at least half of the value they place on the whole partnership. A partner who names a price that leaves him indifferent to whether his partner buys or sells is guaranteed to receive half of his value on the partnership. Likewise, his partner, by simply taking the best deal cannot leave with less than 50% of her value.</p>
<p>However, the Texas shootout is unattractive for a number of reasons. For starters, the procedure does not easily scale if there are more than two joint owners. Nor does it treat the partners symmetrically. </p>
<p>This point can be illustrated with a simple example. Suppose that Ann’s value for the partnership is $10, Bob’s value for the partnership is $16, and suppose, further, that each knows the other’s value. </p>
<p>If Ann triggers the shootout, she should propose a price of $8. Bob will buy her out, and she gets $8. On the other hand, if Bob triggers the shootout, he should propose a price of $5, which Ann should accept. </p>
<p>This way Ann is better off if she triggers the shootout, because she captures $8 rather than $5 – which may lead Ann to trigger the shootout if she fears Bob will trigger it.</p>
<p>Finally, if each partner is uncertain of how highly the other values the partnership, then the buyer in the shootout may not be the partner who values it most highly. </p>
<p>Suppose Ann, for example, knows that Bob values the partnership more highly than she does but is uncertain of what that value is. If there’s a possibility that Bob values the partnership very highly, it may be optimal for Ann to name a price so high that there is some risk Bob will choose to sell rather than buy.</p>
<h2>The auction method</h2>
<p>So, we have developed a new method – called a “compensation auction” – which avoids the negative features of the Texas shootout while retaining the attractive feature that each partner can guarantee themselves an equal share of the value for the business.</p>
<p>The auction takes place over several rounds. At the beginning of each round, the amount of compensation is set to zero. </p>
<p>Compensation is then increased continuously, until one of the partners agrees to take this amount of compensation in return for giving up his claim to the business. This partner exits, and a new round begins. </p>
<p>The process is then repeated until only one partner remains. That partner is awarded the business and he pays each of the others their individualised compensation.</p>
<p>For example, suppose that Ann, Bob and Cathy wish to dissolve their business partnership. In the first round of the auction, compensation rises until Ann becomes the first to drop out, at $8. She surrenders her claim to the partnership and receives $8. Bob and Cathy remain to participate in the second round. </p>
<p>Compensation is set to zero and then increases continuously. Suppose Bob then agrees to accept compensation when it reaches $6. Cathy buys the business, paying $14 in compensation – $8 to Ann and $6 to Bob.</p>
<p>The rules of the compensation auction treat the partners symmetrically, with no partner having a special role. The auction accommodates any number of players and is also efficient.</p>
<p>In addition, each partner can also guarantee themselves an equal share of his or her value for the business. To illustrate, suppose in the example above that Ann’s value for the business is $15 and she follows the plan of accepting compensation if it reaches $5 (that is, a third of her value). </p>
<p>There are two possible outcomes: the first is that she accepts compensation of $5 at either the first or second round, getting a third of her value; the alternative is that she buys the partnership after Bob and Cathy have both dropped out, each having accepted less than $5 as compensation. </p>
<p>In the latter case, Ann gets the business (which she values at $15) and pays at most $10 in compensation, obtaining a net value of at least $5.</p>
<p>The compensation auction therefore ensures each partner can capture an equal share of their value for the partnership. The compensation auction is “fair” in that it treats the partners symmetrically, takes into account any number of partners and is efficient.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66990/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wooders is grateful for financial support from the Australian Research Councilís Discovery Projects
funding scheme (project number DP140103566).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt Van Essen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Researchers have come up with a new way to make sure each partner in a business gets their fair share when they decide to split.John Wooders, Professor of Economics at New York University Abu Dhabi and Distinguished Research Professor, University of Technology SydneyMatt Van Essen, Professor of Economics, University of AlabamaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.